IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i4p1407-d320600.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking the Swedish Diet Relative to Global and National Environmental Targets—Identification of Indicator Limitations and Data Gaps

Author

Listed:
  • Emma Moberg

    (Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden)

  • Hanna Karlsson Potter

    (Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden)

  • Amanda Wood

    (Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Per-Anders Hansson

    (Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden)

  • Elin Röös

    (Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden)

Abstract

To reduce environmental burdens from the food system, a shift towards environmentally sustainable diets is needed. In this study, the environmental impacts of the Swedish diet were benchmarked relative to global environmental boundaries suggested by the EAT- Lancet Commission. To identify local environmental concerns not captured by the global boundaries, relationships between the global EAT- Lancet variables and the national Swedish Environmental Objectives (SEOs) were analysed and additional indicators for missing aspects were identified. The results showed that the environmental impacts caused by the average Swedish diet exceeded the global boundaries for greenhouse gas emissions, cropland use and application of nutrients by two- to more than four-fold when the boundaries were scaled to per capita level. With regard to biodiversity, the impacts caused by the Swedish diet transgressed the boundary by six-fold. For freshwater use, the diet performed well within the boundary. Comparison of global and local indicators revealed that the EAT- Lancet variables covered many aspects included in the SEOs, but that these global indicators are not always of sufficiently fine resolution to capture local aspects of environmental sustainability, such as eutrophication impacts. To consider aspects and impact categories included in the SEO but not currently covered by the EAT- Lancet variables, such as chemical pollution and acidification, additional indicators and boundaries are needed. This requires better inventory data on e.g., pesticide use and improved traceability for imported foods.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Moberg & Hanna Karlsson Potter & Amanda Wood & Per-Anders Hansson & Elin Röös, 2020. "Benchmarking the Swedish Diet Relative to Global and National Environmental Targets—Identification of Indicator Limitations and Data Gaps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1407-:d:320600
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1407/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1407/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Martin & Miguel Brandão, 2017. "Evaluating the Environmental Consequences of Swedish Food Consumption and Dietary Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Chapagain, A.K. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2007. "The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 109-118, October.
    3. O'Brien, D. & Bohan, A. & McHugh, N. & Shalloo, L., 2016. "A life cycle assessment of the effect of intensification on the environmental impacts and resource use of grass-based sheep farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 95-104.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wood, A. & Moberg, E. & Curi-Quinto, K. & Van Rysselberge, P. & Röös, E., 2023. "From “good for people” to “good for people and planet” – Placing health and environment on equal footing when developing food-based dietary guidelines," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Carlos Eduardo Lourenco & Nadine Marques Nunes-Galbes & Riccardo Borgheresi & Luciana Oranges Cezarino & Flavio Pinheiro Martins & Lara Bartocci Liboni, 2022. "Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Moberg, Emma & Säll, Sarah & Hansson, Per-Anders & Röös, Elin, 2021. "Taxing food consumption to reduce environmental impacts – Identification of synergies and goal conflicts," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    4. Röös, E. & Wood, A. & Säll, S. & Abu Hatab, A. & Ahlgren, S. & Hallström, E. & Tidåker, P. & Hansson, H., 2023. "Diagnostic, regenerative or fossil-free - exploring stakeholder perceptions of Swedish food system sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ignacio Cazcarro & Rosa Duarte & Miguel Martín-Retortillo & Vicente Pinilla & Ana Serrano, 2015. "How Sustainable is the Increase in the Water Footprint of the Spanish Agricultural Sector? A Provincial Analysis between 1955 and 2005–2010," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-26, April.
    2. Ehsan Qasemipour & Ali Abbasi & Farhad Tarahomi, 2020. "Water-Saving Scenarios Based on Input–Output Analysis and Virtual Water Concept: A Case in Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Michael Martin & Elvira Molin, 2019. "Environmental Assessment of an Urban Vertical Hydroponic Farming System in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Angela Zinnai & Alberto Pardossi, 2018. "A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Agri-Food Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Wiedmann, Thomas, 2009. "A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade -- MRIO versus PLUM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1975-1990, May.
    6. Okadera, Tomohiro & Geng, Yong & Fujita, Tsuyoshi & Dong, Huijuan & Liu, Zhu & Yoshida, Noboru & Kanazawa, Takaaki, 2015. "Evaluating the water footprint of the energy supply of Liaoning Province, China: A regional input–output analysis approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 148-157.
    7. Irene (Eirini) Kamenidou & Aikaterini Stavrianea & Evangelia-Zoi Bara, 2020. "Generational Differences toward Organic Food Behavior: Insights from Five Generational Cohorts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-25, March.
    8. Yu Zhang & Qing Tian & Huan Hu & Miao Yu, 2019. "Water Footprint of Food Consumption by Chinese Residents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-15, October.
    9. Yu Zhang & Jin-he Zhang & Qing Tian, 2021. "Virtual Water Trade in the Service Sector: China’s Inbound Tourism as a Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-20, February.
    10. Matthew J. Eckelman & Michelle M. Laboy, 2020. "LCAart: Communicating industrial ecology at a human scale," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(4), pages 736-747, August.
    11. Ghada Talat Alhothali & Noha M. Almoraie & Israa M. Shatwan & Najlaa M. Aljefree, 2021. "Sociodemographic Characteristics and Dietary Choices as Determinants of Climate Change Understanding and Concern in Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-14, October.
    12. Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2015. "The roles of human values and generalized trust on stated preferences when food is labeled with environmental footprints: Insights from Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 84-91.
    13. Chapagain, A.K. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. "The blue, green and grey water footprint of rice from production and consumption perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 749-758, February.
    14. Elvira Molin & Michael Martin & Anna Björklund, 2021. "Addressing Sustainability within Public Procurement of Food: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Giljum, Stefan & Burger, Eva & Hinterberger, Friedrich & Lutter, Stephan & Bruckner, Martin, 2011. "A comprehensive set of resource use indicators from the micro to the macro level," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 300-308.
    16. Hoekstra, A.Y., 2009. "Human appropriation of natural capital: A comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1963-1974, May.
    17. Asante, Bright O. & Temoso, Omphile & Addai, Kwabena N. & Villano, Renato A., 2019. "Evaluating productivity gaps in maize production across different agroecological zones in Ghana," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    18. Shuang Chen & Fangli Chen & Lisha Zhu & Qizheng Li & Xiaopeng Wang & Laili Wang, 2023. "A Spatial Water Footprint Assessment of Recycled Cotton T-Shirts: Case of Local Impacts in Selected China Provinces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Deidre Bauer & Julia Arnold & Kerstin Kremer, 2018. "Consumption-Intention Formation in Education for Sustainable Development: An Adapted Model Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, September.
    20. Ying Zhang & Xiaobin Dong & Xue-Chao Wang & Mengxue Liu & Peng Zhang & Ranran Liu & Jiuming Huang & Shuheng Dong, 2022. "Study on the Relationship between Low-Carbon Circular Farming and Animal Husbandry Models and Human Well-Being: A Case Study of Yongchang County, Gansu Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1407-:d:320600. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.