IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i4p849-d320957.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Impact Assessments of Integrated Food and Non-Food Production Systems in Italy and Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Mølgaard Lehmann

    (Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegård Allé 30, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark)

  • Magdalena Borzęcka

    (Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, State Research Institute, Czartoryskich 8, 24–100 Puławy, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Żyłowska

    (Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, State Research Institute, Czartoryskich 8, 24–100 Puławy, Poland)

  • Andrea Pisanelli

    (Research Institute on Terrestrial Ecosystems, National Research Council, Via Marconi 2, 05010 Porano, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Russo

    (Research Institute on Terrestrial Ecosystems, National Research Council, Via Marconi 2, 05010 Porano, Italy)

  • Bhim Bahadur Ghaley

    (Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegård Allé 30, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark)

Abstract

Given the environmental footprints of the conventional agriculture, it is imperative to test and validate alternative production systems, with lower environmental impacts to mitigate and adapt our production systems. In this study, we identified six production systems, four in Italy and two in Denmark, to assess the environmental footprint for comparison among the production systems and additionally with conventional production systems. SimaPro 8.4 software was used to carry out the life cycle impact assessment. Among other indicators, three significantly important indicators, namely global warming potential, acidification, and eutrophication, were used as the proxy for life cycle impact assessment. In Italy, the production systems compared were silvopastoral, organic, traditional, and conventional olive production systems, whereas in Denmark, combined food and energy production system was compared with the conventional wheat production system. Among the six production systems, conventional wheat production system in Denmark accounted for highest global warming potential, acidification, and eutrophication. In Italy, global warming potential was highest in traditional agroforestry and lowest in the silvopastoral system whereas acidification and eutrophication were lowest in the traditional production system with high acidification effects from the silvopastoral system. In Italy, machinery use contributed the highest greenhouse gas emissions in silvopastoral and organic production systems, while the large contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer was recorded in the traditional and conventional production systems. In Denmark, the combined food and energy system had lower environmental impacts compared to the conventional wheat production system according to the three indicators. For both systems in Denmark, the main contribution to greenhouse gas emission was due to fertilizer and manure application. The study showed that integrated food and non-food systems are more environmentally friendly and less polluting compared to the conventional wheat production system in Denmark with use of chemical fertilizers and irrigation. The study can contribute to informed decision making by the land managers and policy makers for promotion of environmentally friendly food and non-food production practices, to meet the European Union targets of providing biomass-based materials and energy to contribute to the bio-based economy in Europe and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Mølgaard Lehmann & Magdalena Borzęcka & Katarzyna Żyłowska & Andrea Pisanelli & Giuseppe Russo & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley, 2020. "Environmental Impact Assessments of Integrated Food and Non-Food Production Systems in Italy and Denmark," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:4:p:849-:d:320957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/4/849/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/4/849/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nemecek, Thomas & Dubois, David & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Gaillard, Gérard, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 217-232, March.
    2. El Hanandeh, Ali & Gharaibeh, Mamoun A., 2016. "Environmental efficiency of olive oil production by small and micro-scale farmers in northern Jordan: Life cycle assessment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 169-177.
    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. Maya Sollen-Norrlin & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley & Naomi Laura Jane Rintoul, 2020. "Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.

    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. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    3. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    4. Tuomisto, H.L. & Hodge, I.D. & Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D.W., 2012. "Comparing energy balances, greenhouse gas balances and biodiversity impacts of contrasting farming systems with alternative land uses," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 42-49.
    5. Nina Repar & Pierrick Jan & Thomas Nemecek & Dunja Dux & Martina Alig Ceesay & Reiner Doluschitz, 2016. "Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Beatriz Ruiz-Carrasco & Lázuli Fernández-Lobato & Yaiza López-Sánchez & David Vera, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of Olive Oil Production in Turkey, a Territory with an Intensive Production Project," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-23, June.
    7. Nemecek, Thomas & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Dubois, David & Gaillard, Gérard & Schaller, Britta & Chervet, Andreas, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 233-245, March.
    8. Lars Biernat & Friedhelm Taube & Ralf Loges & Christof Kluß & Thorsten Reinsch, 2020. "Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Methane Uptake from Organic and Conventionally Managed Arable Crop Rotations on Farms in Northwest Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Rafiee, Shahin & Omid, Mahmoud & Yousefi, Marziye & Movahedi, Mehran, 2013. "Modeling of energy consumption and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in wheat production in Esfahan province of Iran using artificial neural networks," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 333-338.
    10. Pradeleix, L. & Roux, P. & Bouarfa, S. & Bellon-Maurel, V., 2023. "Multilevel life cycle assessment to evaluate prospective agricultural development scenarios in a semi-arid irrigated region of Tunisia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    11. Joanna Domagała, 2021. "Economic and Environmental Aspects of Agriculture in the EU Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    12. Longlong Tang & Kiyotada Hayashi & Kazunori Kohyama & Ai Leon, 2018. "Reconciling Life Cycle Environmental Impacts with Ecosystem Services: A Management Perspective on Agricultural Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Pradeleix, L. & Roux, P. & Bouarfa, S. & Bellon-Maurel, V., 2022. "Multilevel environmental assessment of regional farming activities with Life Cycle Assessment: Tackling data scarcity and farm diversity with Life Cycle Inventories based on Agrarian System Diagnosis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Houshyar, Ehsan & Grundmann, Philipp, 2017. "Environmental impacts of energy use in wheat tillage systems: A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study in Iran," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 11-24.
    15. Liang, Long & Lal, Rattan & Ridoutt, Bradley G. & Zhao, Guishen & Du, Zhangliu & Li, Li & Feng, Dangyang & Wang, Liyuan & Peng, Peng & Hang, Sheng & Wu, Wenliang, 2018. "Multi-indicator assessment of a water-saving agricultural engineering project in North Beijing, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 34-46.
    16. Berti, Marisol & Johnson, Burton & Ripplinger, David & Gesch, Russ & Aponte, Alfredo, 2017. "Environmental impact assessment of double- and relay-cropping with winter camelina in the northern Great Plains, USA," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-12.
    17. Liu, Chia-Yi & Hsieh & Chen-Yu, 2023. "How does Organic Agriculture Contribute to Sustainable Development? Organic Agriculture in Taiwan," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 14(03), September.
    18. El Chami, D. & Daccache, A., 2015. "Assessing sustainability of winter wheat production under climate change scenarios in a humid climate — An integrated modelling framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 19-25.
    19. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.
    20. Forte, Annachiara & Zucaro, Amalia & De Vico, Gionata & Fierro, Angelo, 2016. "Carbon footprint of heliciculture: A case study from an Italian experimental farm," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-111.

    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:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:4:p:849-:d:320957. 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.