IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v186y2021ics0308521x20308507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon footprints and social carbon cost assessments in a perennial energy crop system: A comparison of fertilizer management practices in a Mediterranean area

Author

Listed:
  • Solinas, Stefania
  • Tiloca, Maria Teresa
  • Deligios, Paola A.
  • Cossu, Marco
  • Ledda, Luigi

Abstract

Agriculture is strongly linked to climate change and has a two-sided relationship with climate change. Although climate change contributes to reducing agricultural productivity, the primary sector is responsible for the production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; on the other hand, the primary sector could mitigate emissions to foster soil carbon sequestration. Specifically, perennial energy crop systems could produce relevant environmental and socio-economic benefits. This study aimed to highlight the potential efficacy of various fertilizer management strategies in reducing GHG emissions and increasing the social value obtained from carbon storage. Using two methodological approaches, namely, the carbon footprint (CF) and social carbon cost (SCC) methods, five nitrogen fertilization patterns (low input, LI; high input, HI; LI + biochar, LI + Bi; LI + cover crop, LI + CC; and LI + Bi + CC) were compared in an experiment on cardoon cultivation for three consecutive growing seasons. GHG release exceeded GHG removal and ranged from 0.20 (HI) to 0.14 (LI + CC) t CO2e per production unit. LI + CC reduced GHG emissions and optimized yield. The rates of carbon sequestration ranged from 72.7 (HI) to 26.2 (LI) t CO2e t −1 of biomass. Furthermore, the combined use of biochar and a cover crop had no positive effects on C sequestration or GHG emission reduction, unlike these treatments individually. In fact, LI + Bi provided the highest value for C storage (61.1 t CO2e t − 1 of biomass), and LI + CC had the best GHG balance (0.14 t CO2e per production unit). The monetary evaluation of C storage showed that HI would produce the greatest benefits until 2050 (i.e., 9 K US dollars per t CO2e). Although a single best option was not identified among the fertilizer management practices, identifying the optimal trade-offs among productivity, GHG emissions reduction and SCC value is important in ensuring that an energy crop will provide food security as well as environmental and socio-economic sustainability. Furthermore, a potential optimal solution could allow improvements in long-term crop system planning and land use and the development of effective strategies to combat climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Solinas, Stefania & Tiloca, Maria Teresa & Deligios, Paola A. & Cossu, Marco & Ledda, Luigi, 2021. "Carbon footprints and social carbon cost assessments in a perennial energy crop system: A comparison of fertilizer management practices in a Mediterranean area," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:186:y:2021:i:c:s0308521x20308507
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X20308507
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102989?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Janda, Karel & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 394-406.
    2. van den Bijgaart, Inge & Gerlagh, Reyer & Liski, Matti, 2016. "A simple formula for the social cost of carbon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 75-94.
    3. Julie Ingram & Jane Mills & Ana Frelih-Larsen & McKenna Davis & Paulo Merante & Sian Ringrose & Andras Molnar & Berta Sánchez & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley & Zbigniew Karaczun & Roberto Ferrise & Camilla Diba, 2014. "Managing Soil Organic Carbon: A Farm Perspective," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 13(2), pages 12-19, August.
    4. De Menna, Fabio & Malagnino, Remo Alessio & Vittuari, Matteo & Segrè, Andrea & Molari, Giovanni & Deligios, Paola A. & Solinas, Stefania & Ledda, Luigi, 2018. "Optimization of agricultural biogas supply chains using artichoke byproducts in existing plants," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 137-146.
    5. Athanasios Balafoutis & Bert Beck & Spyros Fountas & Jurgen Vangeyte & Tamme Van der Wal & Iria Soto & Manuel Gómez-Barbero & Andrew Barnes & Vera Eory, 2017. "Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-28, July.
    6. Michael Greenstone & Elizabeth Kopits & Ann Wolverton, 2013. "Developing a Social Cost of Carbon for US Regulatory Analysis: A Methodology and Interpretation," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 23-46, January.
    7. David Anthoff & Richard Tol, 2013. "The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: A decomposition analysis using fund," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 515-530, April.
    8. Dominic Woolf & James E. Amonette & F. Alayne Street-Perrott & Johannes Lehmann & Stephen Joseph, 2010. "Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Al-Mansour, F. & Jejcic, V., 2017. "A model calculation of the carbon footprint of agricultural products: The case of Slovenia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 7-15.
    10. David Anthoff & Richard Tol, 2013. "Erratum to: The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: A decomposition analysis using fund," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 413-413, November.
    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. Li, Lu & Zhou, Yan & Li, Mo & Cao, Kaihua & Tao, Yanhuai & Liu, Yangdachuan, 2022. "Integrated modelling for cropping pattern optimization and planning considering the synergy of water resources-society-economy-ecology-environment system," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    2. Li, Mo & Chen, Yingshan & Liu, Dong & Xue, Min & Wang, Yijia & Fu, Qiang, 2024. "Synergetic management of the water-energy-food nexus for cropland ecosystems under climate change: Toward a multistakeholder-based systematic optimization approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    3. Knápek, J. & Starý, O. & Vávrová, K. & Bemš, J. & Weger, J. & Horák, M., 2024. "Modelling the impact of business risk on the competitiveness of purpose-grown biomass of annual and perennial crops," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    4. L. X. Xiong & X. Y. Li & J. J. Ning & Y. R. Dong & Y. Yan, 2023. "The effects of dynamic incentives on the recycling of livestock and poultry manure in a multiscenario evolutionary game," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 4301-4333, May.

    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. Jussi Lintunen & Lauri Vilmi, 2021. "Optimal Emission Prices Over the Business Cycles," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 135-167, September.
    2. Richard S.J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have not changed over time," Working Paper Series 0821, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Janda, Karel & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 394-406.
    4. Richard S. J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have increased over time," Papers 2105.03656, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    5. Richard S J Tol, 2018. "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 4-25.
    6. Agliardi, Elettra & Xepapadeas, Anastasios, 2022. "Temperature targets, deep uncertainty and extreme events in the design of optimal climate policy," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    7. Zhang, Hong & Jin, Gui & Zhang, Zhengyu, 2021. "Coupling system of carbon emission and social economy: A review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    8. van den Bijgaart, Inge & Gerlagh, Reyer & Liski, Matti, 2016. "A simple formula for the social cost of carbon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 75-94.
    9. Mier, Mathias & Weissbart, Christoph, 2020. "Power markets in transition: Decarbonization, energy efficiency, and short-term demand response," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    10. van den Bijgaart, Inge, 2016. "Essays in environmental economics and policy," Other publications TiSEM 298bee2a-cb08-4173-9fe1-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Siba Sankar Mohanty & Annie Rath, 2021. "Capturing Social Cost in Construction Sector: A Review of Literature through Meta-Analysis," Journal of Studies in Dynamics and Change (JSDC), ISSN: 2348-7038, Voices of Inclusive Change and Expressions- (VOICE) Trust, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, vol. 8(4), pages 17-30, October-D.
    12. Richard S. J. Tol, 2023. "Social cost of carbon estimates have increased over time," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 13(6), pages 532-536, June.
    13. Charlie Wilson & Céline Guivarch & Elmar Kriegler & Bas Ruijven & Detlef P. Vuuren & Volker Krey & Valeria Jana Schwanitz & Erica L. Thompson, 2021. "Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-22, May.
    14. Gilbert Kollenbach, 2019. "Unilateral climate policy and the green paradox: Extraction costs matter," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 1036-1083, August.
    15. Miftakhova, Alena, 2021. "Global sensitivity analysis for optimal climate policies: Finding what truly matters," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    16. Kollenbach, Gilbert, 2017. "On the optimal accumulation of renewable energy generation capacity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 157-179.
    17. van den Bijgaart, Inge & Gerlagh, Reyer & Liski, Matti, 2016. "A simple formula for the social cost of carbon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 75-94.
    18. Tiruwork B. Tibebu & Eric Hittinger & Qing Miao & Eric Williams, 2024. "Adoption Model Choice Affects the Optimal Subsidy for Residential Solar," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, February.
    19. Kedi Liu & Ranran Wang & Inge Schrijver & Rutger Hoekstra, 2024. "Can we project well-being? Towards integral well-being projections in climate models and beyond," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Kenneth Gillingham & William D. Nordhaus & David Anthoff & Geoffrey Blanford & Valentina Bosetti & Peter Christensen & Haewon McJeon & John Reilly & Paul Sztorc, 2015. "Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison," NBER Working Papers 21637, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:eee:agisys:v:186:y:2021:i:c:s0308521x20308507. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.