IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v67y2017icp461-476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do greenhouse gas emission calculations from energy crop cultivation reflect actual agricultural management practices? – A review of carbon footprint calculators

Author

Listed:
  • Peter, Christiane
  • Helming, Katharina
  • Nendel, Claas

Abstract

A wide range of calculators have been developed to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of agricultural products, including biomass for bioenergy production. However, these calculators often fail in their ability to take into account the differences in pedoclimatic conditions, agricultural management practices and characteristics of perennial crops and crop rotations. As a result, the predictions of GHG emissions by these calculators are characterized by a high level of uncertainty, and calculators may fail in their ability to detect mitigation options along the production chain. The aim of this study was to analyze the available calculators for calculating GHG emissions from energy crop cultivation based on Carbon Footprint (CFP) approaches according to the goal and scope of the calculator, the methodology used to account for GHG emissions from energy crop cultivation, energy crop cultivation management practices and the ability to model crop rotation. Out of 44 environmental assessment calculators for agricultural products, we identified 18 calculators which are capable of assessing GHG emissions from energy crop cultivation. These calculators differ in their goal and scope and which farming operations related to crop management are taken into account; this makes it difficult to compare and interpret the results from these CFP assessments. Only seven calculators out of 18 can calculate GHG emissions from energy crop rotations. At the moment, none of these calculators are able to consider actual effects from energy crops in rotation in the context of nutrient shifts, reductions in the use of agricultural operating needs, or the sequence and composition of crop rotations. However, by expanding the system boundaries of the CFP study, by taking the whole energy crop rotation and local agricultural management practices into account, the opportunity to identify more GHG mitigation options increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter, Christiane & Helming, Katharina & Nendel, Claas, 2017. "Do greenhouse gas emission calculations from energy crop cultivation reflect actual agricultural management practices? – A review of carbon footprint calculators," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 461-476.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:461-476
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116305536
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.059?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. Buytaert, V. & Muys, B. & Devriendt, N. & Pelkmans, L. & Kretzschmar, J.G. & Samson, R., 2011. "Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass: A state of the art evaluation of assessment tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3918-3933.
    2. Hennecke, Anna M. & Faist, Mireille & Reinhardt, Jürgen & Junquera, Victoria & Neeft, John & Fehrenbach, Horst, 2013. "Biofuel greenhouse gas calculations under the European Renewable Energy Directive – A comparison of the BioGrace tool vs. the tool of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 55-62.
    3. Rehl, T. & Lansche, J. & Müller, J., 2012. "Life cycle assessment of energy generation from biogas—Attributional vs. consequential approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 3766-3775.
    4. Whittaker, Carly & McManus, Marcelle C. & Hammond, Geoffrey P., 2011. "Greenhouse gas reporting for biofuels: A comparison between the RED, RTFO and PAS2050 methodologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 5950-5960, October.
    5. Brankatschk, Gerhard & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2015. "Modeling crop rotation in agricultural LCAs — Challenges and potential solutions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 66-76.
    6. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François, 2011. "Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1630-1646, March.
    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. Dainius Steponavičius & Aurelija Kemzūraitė & Laimis Bauša & Ernestas Zaleckas, 2019. "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Pod Sealants in Increasing Pod Shattering Resistance in Oilseed Rape ( Brassica napus L.)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Koponen, Kati & Soimakallio, Sampo & Kline, Keith L. & Cowie, Annette & Brandão, Miguel, 2018. "Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy – Choice of reference system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2271-2280.
    3. Sánchez, A.S. & Almeida, M.B. & Torres, E.A. & Kalid, R.A. & Cohim, E. & Gasparatos, A., 2018. "Alternative biodiesel feedstock systems in the Semi-arid region of Brazil: Implications for ecosystem services," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2744-2758.
    4. Agata Mesjasz-Lech, 2017. "Environmental Protection Expenditures and Effects of Environmental Governance of Sustainable Development in Manufacture Enterprise," Proceedings- 11th International Conference on Mangement, Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB 2017),, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.
    5. Changcun Wen & Jiaru Zheng & Bao Hu & Qingning Lin, 2022. "Study on the Spatiotemporal Evolution and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Carbon Emissions in the Counties of Zhejiang Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-28, December.
    6. Nisar, Shahida & Benbi, Dinesh Kumar & Toor, Amardeep Singh, 2021. "Energy budgeting and carbon footprints of three tillage systems in maize-wheat sequence of north-western Indo-Gangetic Plains," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    7. Liu, Zhen & Tian, Jiali & Wang, Kexin & Lan, Jing, 2023. "The impact of farmland circulation on the carbon footprint of agricultural cultivation in China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 792-801.
    8. Lilianna Głąb & Józef Sowiński, 2019. "Sustainable Production of Sweet Sorghum as a Bioenergy Crop Using Biosolids Taking into Account Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Maria G. Lampridi & Claus G. Sørensen & Dionysis Bochtis, 2019. "Agricultural Sustainability: A Review of Concepts and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-27, September.
    10. Schmitz Gonçalves, Daniel Neves & Goes, George Vasconcelos & de Almeida D'Agosto, Márcio & Albergaria de Mello Bandeira, Renata, 2019. "Energy use and emissions scenarios for transport to gauge progress toward national commitments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Hongpeng Guo & Sidong Xie & Chulin Pan, 2021. "The Impact of Planting Industry Structural Changes on Carbon Emissions in the Three Northeast Provinces of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Shuang Gao & Patrick L. Gurian & Paul R. Adler & Sabrina Spatari & Ram Gurung & Saurajyoti Kar & Stephen M. Ogle & William J. Parton & Stephen J. Grosso, 2018. "Framework for improved confidence in modeled nitrous oxide estimates for biofuel regulatory standards," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 1281-1301, December.
    13. Radonjič, Gregor & Tompa, Saša, 2018. "Carbon footprint calculation in telecommunications companies – The importance and relevance of scope 3 greenhouse gases emissions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 361-375.
    14. Perčić, Maja & Ančić, Ivica & Vladimir, Nikola, 2020. "Life-cycle cost assessments of different power system configurations to reduce the carbon footprint in the Croatian short-sea shipping sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    15. Evagelia Koutridi & Dimitrios Tsiotas & Olga Christopoulou, 2023. "Examining the Spatial Effect of “Smartness” on the Relationship between Agriculture and Regional Development: The Case of Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, February.
    16. Braulio-Gonzalo, Marta & Bovea, María D., 2019. "Carbon metric of the household sector in the use stage according to ISO 16745: A case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 474-489.
    17. Arkadiusz Piwowar & Joanna Harasym, 2020. "The Importance and Prospects of the Use of Algae in Agribusiness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-13, July.

    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. Inge Stupak & Jamie Joudrey & C. Tattersall Smith & Luc Pelkmans & Helena Chum & Annette Cowie & Oskar Englund & Chun Sheng Goh & Martin Junginger, 2016. "A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 89-118, January.
    2. Manninen, Kaisa & Koskela, Sirkka & Nuppunen, Anni & Sorvari, Jaana & Nevalainen, Olli & Siitonen, Sari, 2013. "The applicability of the renewable energy directive calculation to assess the sustainability of biogas production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 549-557.
    3. Khatiwada, Dilip & Seabra, Joaquim & Silveira, Semida & Walter, Arnaldo, 2012. "Accounting greenhouse gas emissions in the lifecycle of Brazilian sugarcane bioethanol: Methodological references in European and American regulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 384-397.
    4. Peter, Christiane & Specka, Xenia & Aurbacher, Joachim & Kornatz, Peter & Herrmann, Christiane & Heiermann, Monika & Müller, Janine & Nendel, Claas, 2017. "The MiLA tool: Modeling greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative energy demand of energy crop cultivation in rotation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 67-79.
    5. de Man, Reinier & German, Laura, 2017. "Certifying the sustainability of biofuels: Promise and reality," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 871-883.
    6. Adams, P.W.R. & Mezzullo, W.G. & McManus, M.C., 2015. "Biomass sustainability criteria: Greenhouse gas accounting issues for biogas and biomethane facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 95-109.
    7. James Thurlow & Giacomo Branca & Erika Felix & Irini Maltsoglou & Luis E. Rincón, 2016. "Producing Biofuels in Low-Income Countries: An Integrated Environmental and Economic Assessment for Tanzania," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(2), pages 153-171, June.
    8. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    9. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N., 2017. "Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-65.
    10. Kung, Chih-Chun & Wu, Tao, 2021. "Influence of water allocation on bioenergy production under climate change: A stochastic mathematical programming approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    11. Bacenetti, Jacopo & Sala, Cesare & Fusi, Alessandra & Fiala, Marco, 2016. "Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 669-686.
    12. Malça, João & Coelho, António & Freire, Fausto, 2014. "Environmental life-cycle assessment of rapeseed-based biodiesel: Alternative cultivation systems and locations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 837-844.
    13. German, Laura & Schoneveld, George, 2012. "A review of social sustainability considerations among EU-approved voluntary schemes for biofuels, with implications for rural livelihoods," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 765-778.
    14. Ribeiro, Barbara E. & Quintanilla, Miguel A., 2015. "Transitions in biofuel technologies: An appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 53-68.
    15. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Wydra, Sven, 2015. "Challenges for technology diffusion policy to achieve socio-economic goals," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 76-90.
    17. Cambero, Claudia & Hans Alexandre, Mariane & Sowlati, Taraneh, 2015. "Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of bioenergy generation alternatives using forest and wood residues in remote locations: A case study in British Columbia, Canada," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 59-72.
    18. Montalvo-Navarrete, Juan M. & Lasso-Palacios, Ana P., 2024. "Energy access sustainability criteria definition for Colombian rural areas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).
    19. Ji, Xi & Long, Xianling, 2016. "A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and energy policy recommendations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 41-52.
    20. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.

    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:rensus:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:461-476. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.