IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v11y2022i6p56-d832298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biotic Part of the Product Material Footprint: Comparison of Indicators Regarding Their Interpretation and Applicability

Author

Listed:
  • Clemens Mostert

    (Center for Environmental Systems Research (CESR), Kassel Institute for Sustainability, University of Kassel, 34109 Kassel, Germany)

  • Stefan Bringezu

    (Center for Environmental Systems Research (CESR), Kassel Institute for Sustainability, University of Kassel, 34109 Kassel, Germany)

Abstract

The product material footprint (PMF) represents a central instrument to assess the potential environmental impacts of products and services based on their life-cycle-wide material use. Within the life cycle impact assessment framework, the indicators raw material input (RMI) and total material requirement (TMR) have been used for its calculation, but so far, only abiotic materials have been considered. This research analyses the requirements and indicators for the assessment of the biotic part of the PMF. The central question is whether the indicators RMI biotic and TMR biotic are suitable for this purpose or if they need to be adapted. For comparison, the indicator cumulative raw material demand (CRD) is applied. The indicator concepts of RMI, TMR, and CRD are compared by defining the system boundaries for determining the biotic parts of the footprint. To test the applicability, the production of wheat bread is assessed as a case study. The characterization factors of wheat grains are determined and each of the three indicators is implemented in the software openLCA for use with the ecoinvent database. The results show that RMI biotic and TMR biotic are suitable indicators for the quantification and assessment of the biotic part of the PMF. While CRD abiotic provides the same information as RMI abiotic , both indicators differ regarding the biotic part. The CRD per definition does not consider biotic inputs from agriculture and forestry and thus conveys insufficient information on the used and unused biomass extraction for the product LCA. The ratio of RMI biotic to the net annual increment and TMR biotic to the net primary production could be used for absolute sustainability assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Clemens Mostert & Stefan Bringezu, 2022. "Biotic Part of the Product Material Footprint: Comparison of Indicators Regarding Their Interpretation and Applicability," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:11:y:2022:i:6:p:56-:d:832298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/11/6/56/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/11/6/56/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Chappell & Liliana LaValle, 2011. "Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(1), pages 3-26, February.
    2. Manfred Lenzen & Arne Geschke & James West & Jacob Fry & Arunima Malik & Stefan Giljum & Llorenç Milà i Canals & Pablo Piñero & Stephan Lutter & Thomas Wiedmann & Mengyu Li & Maartje Sevenster & Janez, 2022. "Implementing the material footprint to measure progress towards Sustainable Development Goals 8 and 12," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(2), pages 157-166, February.
    3. Blanco, Carlos Felipe & Marques, Alexandra & van Bodegom, Peter M., 2018. "An integrated framework to assess impacts on ecosystem services in LCA demonstrated by a case study of mining in Chile," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 211-219.
    4. Marius Dan Gavriletea, 2017. "Environmental Impacts of Sand Exploitation. Analysis of Sand Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-26, June.
    5. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    6. Lauran Van Oers & Jeroen Guinée, 2016. "The Abiotic Depletion Potential: Background, Updates, and Future," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, March.
    7. Nadine Rötzer & Mario Schmidt, 2018. "Decreasing Metal Ore Grades—Is the Fear of Resource Depletion Justified?," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Clemens Mostert & Stefan Bringezu, 2019. "Measuring Product Material Footprint as New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method: Indicators and Abiotic Characterization Factors," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Mutoko, Morgan C. & Hein, Lars & Shisanya, Chris A., 2015. "Tropical forest conservation versus conversion trade-offs: Insights from analysis of ecosystem services provided by Kakamega rainforest in Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 1-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fábio T. F. Silva & Alexandre Szklo & Amanda Vinhoza & Ana Célia Nogueira & André F. P. Lucena & Antônio Marcos Mendonça & Camilla Marcolino & Felipe Nunes & Francielle M. Carvalho & Isabela Tagomori , 2022. "Inter-sectoral prioritization of climate technologies: insights from a Technology Needs Assessment for mitigation in Brazil," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 1-39, October.
    2. Hannah Romanowski & Lauren Blake, 2023. "Neonicotinoid seed treatment on sugar beet in England: a qualitative analysis of the controversy, existing policy and viability of alternatives," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(3), pages 453-472, September.
    3. Imen Turki Abdelhedi & Sonia Zouari Zouari, 2020. "Agriculture and Food Security in North Africa: a Theoretical and Empirical Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(1), pages 193-210, March.
    4. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    7. Julie Sardos & Sara Muller & Marie-France Duval & Jean-Louis Noyer & Vincent Lebot, 2016. "Root crops diversity and agricultural resilience: a case study of traditional agrosystems in Vanuatu (Oceania)," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(3), pages 721-736, September.
    8. Iliriana Miftari & Rainer Haas & Oliver Meixner & Drini Imami & Ekrem Gjokaj, 2022. "Factors Influencing Consumer Attitudes towards Organic Food Products in a Transition Economy—Insights from Kosovo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Bang, Rasmus & Hansen, Bjørn Gunnar & Guajardo, Mario & Sommerseth, Jon Kristian & Flaten, Ola & Asheim, Leif Jarle, 2024. "Conventional or organic cattle farming? Trade-offs between crop yield, livestock capacity, organic premiums, and government payments," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    10. Dimitrios Vlachopoulos & Rannveig Björk Thorkelsdóttir & Despoina Schina & Jóna Guðrún Jónsdóttir, 2023. "Teachers’ Experience and Perceptions of Sustainable Digitalization in School Education: An Existential Phenomenological Study of Teachers in Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Iceland, and The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Zegar, Józef S., 2012. "Gospodarstwa Rodzinne Wobec Wyzwań Wyżywienia I Ochrony Środowiska – Ujęcie Globalne," Village and Agriculture (Wieś i Rolnictwo), Polish Academy of Sciences (IRWiR PAN), Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development, vol. 4(157).
    12. Zhu, Zhanguo & Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "The accumulation and substitution effects of multi-nation certified organic and protected eco-origin food labels in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    14. Elena N. Shaforostova & Olga V. Kosareva-Volod’ko & Olga V. Belyankina & Danila Y. Solovykh & Ekaterina S. Sazankova & Elena I. Sizova & Danila A. Adigamov, 2023. "A Tailing Dump as Industrial Deposit; Study of the Mineralogical Composition of Tailing Dump of the Southern Urals and the Possibility of Tailings Re-Development," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-13, February.
    15. Carrie Furman & Carla Roncoli & Donald Nelson & Gerrit Hoogenboom, 2014. "Growing food, growing a movement: climate adaptation and civic agriculture in the southeastern United States," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(1), pages 69-82, March.
    16. Fischer, Joern & Abson, David J. & Butsic, Van & Chappell, M. Jahi & Ekroos, Johan & Hanspach, Jan & Kuemmerle, Tobias & Smith, Henrik G. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2014. "Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(3), pages 149-157.
    17. Leslie J. Verteramo Chiu & Miguel I. Gomez, 2023. "A Tale of Two Strawberries: Conventional and Organic Open-Field Production in California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-11, September.
    18. Izak B. Foster & Trevor McIntyre & Natalie S. Haussmann, 2019. "Understanding the relationship between farmers and burrowing mammals on South African farms: are burrowers friends or foes?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 719-731, December.
    19. Marius Kazlauskas & Indrė Bručienė & Dainius Savickas & Vilma Naujokienė & Sidona Buragienė & Dainius Steponavičius & Kęstutis Romaneckas & Egidijus Šarauskis, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of Winter Wheat Production Using Precision and Conventional Seeding Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-13, September.
    20. Sophie Sfez & Jo Dewulf & Wouter De Soete & Thomas Schaubroeck & Fabrice Mathieux & Dana Kralisch & Steven De Meester, 2017. "Toward a Framework for Resource Efficiency Evaluation in Industry: Recommendations for Research and Innovation Projects," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, January.

    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:jresou:v:11:y:2022:i:6:p:56-:d:832298. 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.