IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i10d10.1007_s10668-023-03718-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bioeconomics applied to organic agriculture enhance social and environmental impact of Brazilian properties

Author

Listed:
  • Camila Fritzen Cidón

    (Post Graduate Program in Environmental Quality, Feevale University)

  • Dusan Schreiber

    (Post Graduate Program in Environmental Quality, Feevale University)

  • Paola Schmitt Figueiró

    (Post Graduate Program in Environmental Quality, Feevale University)

Abstract

Traditional agriculture produces high greenhouse gas emissions and uses fossil fuels fertilizers and agrochemicals that corroborate climate change, deforestation, soil contamination, and biodiversity loss. On the other hand, organic agriculture and bioeconomy principles seek to promote sustainability by embracing environmental and social causes. The principles of bioeconomy encourage the rational use of recyclable nutrients and the transformation of conventional systems into sustainable ones to minimize environmental impact. The aim of this study was to understand how the principles of bioeconomy are inserted and if it is generating socioenvironmental benefits for Brazilian organic farmers. Participatory rural appraisals were conducted at organic farming properties in the Vale do Rio do Sinos region, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and generated coefficients were inserted into an environmental impact assessment system. The average socioenvironmental impact index score obtained was 7.6 (on a criteria scale of −15 to + 15). Overall, our research revealed social and environmental impacts (average score of 7.7 and 3.6, respectively), directly related to the improvement in soil quality, preservation of the environment, and conservation of biodiversity. These elements also contributed to increasing impact in income specialization, management, administration, and consumer respect. Negative index impact was related to energy consumption and water quality (−3.8 and −0.1, respectively), due to the self-reliance on fossil fuel-powered machinery and cross-contamination. Bioeconomic principles applied by Brazilian organic farmers generated a positive socioenvironmental impact. Nevertheless, there is still a need for more assistance with a bioeconomy approach, the implementation of cleaner technologies, and the independence of external vendors with no organic guarantees.

Suggested Citation

  • Camila Fritzen Cidón & Dusan Schreiber & Paola Schmitt Figueiró, 2024. "Bioeconomics applied to organic agriculture enhance social and environmental impact of Brazilian properties," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(10), pages 26085-26113, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03718-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03718-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03718-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-03718-8?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. Mark W. Rosegrant & Claudia Ringler & Tingju Zhu & Simla Tokgoz & Prapti Bhandary, 2013. "Water and food in the bioeconomy: challenges and opportunities for development," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 139-150, November.
    2. Thomas Hertel & Jevgenijs Steinbuks & Uris Baldos, 2013. "Competition for land in the global bioeconomy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 129-138, November.
    3. Kiehbadroudinezhad, Mohammadali & Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, Homa & Pan, Junting & Peng, Wanxi & Wang, Yajing & Aghbashlo, Mortaza & Tabatabaei, Meisam, 2023. "The potential of aquatic weed as a resource for sustainable bioenergy sources and bioproducts production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(PA).
    4. Siegmeier, Torsten & Blumenstein, Benjamin & Möller, Detlev, 2015. "Farm biogas production in organic agriculture: System implications," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 196-209.
    5. Qiao, Yuhui & Martin, Friederike & Cook, Seth & He, Xueqing & Halberg, Niels & Scott, Steffanie & Pan, Xihe, 2018. "Certified Organic Agriculture as an Alternative Livelihood Strategy for Small-scale Farmers in China: A Case Study in Wanzai County, Jiangxi Province," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 301-307.
    6. Laura Mariana Cismaș & Emilia Mary Bălan, 2023. "Agriculture’s Contribution to the Growth of Romanian Bioeconomy: A Regional Approach," Eastern European Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(4), pages 403-419, July.
    7. Camila Fritzen Cidón & Paola Schmitt Figueiró & Dusan Schreiber, 2021. "Benefits of Organic Agriculture under the Perspective of the Bioeconomy: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-19, June.
    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. Camila Fritzen Cidón & Paola Schmitt Figueiró & Dusan Schreiber, 2021. "Benefits of Organic Agriculture under the Perspective of the Bioeconomy: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Viaggi, Davide, 2018. "Towards an economics of the bioeconomy: four years later," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(2), September.
    3. Jakob Hoffmann & Johannes Glückler, 2023. "Technological Cohesion and Convergence: A Main Path Analysis of the Bioeconomy, 1900–2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    5. Haqiqi, Iman & Taheripour, Farzad & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2016. "Climate Change, Food Production, and Welfare," Conference papers 332785, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Emilia Mary Balan & Cristina Georgiana Zeldea, 2023. "Bioeconomy in Romania: Investigating Farmers’ Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-29, May.
    9. Chen-Fu Lu & Chia-Yi Cheng, 2019. "Impacts of Spatial Clusters on Certified Organic Farming in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    10. Britz, Wolfgang & Li, Jingwen & Shang, Linmei, 2021. "Combining large-scale sensitivity analysis in Computable General Equilibrium models with Machine Learning: An Example Application to policy supporting the bio-economy," Conference papers 333285, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Valeria Borsellino & Emanuele Schimmenti & Hamid El Bilali, 2020. "Agri-Food Markets towards Sustainable Patterns," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-35, March.
    12. de la Cruz, Vera Ysabel V. & Tantriani, & Cheng, Weiguo & Tawaraya, Keitaro, 2023. "Yield gap between organic and conventional farming systems across climate types and sub-types: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    13. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    14. Escobar, Neus & Laibach, Natalie, 2021. "Sustainability check for bio-based technologies: A review of process-based and life cycle approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    15. Markandya, Anil & Golub, Elena & Sahin, Sebnem & Golub, Alexander & Kumer Mitra, Bijon & Taheripour, Farzad & Narayanan, Badri, 2017. "Water Resources in South Asia: An Assessment of Climate Related Vulnerabilities," Conference papers 330178, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    16. Benjamin Blumenstein & Torsten Siegmeier & Carsten Bruckhaus & Victor Anspach & Detlev Möller, 2015. "Integrated Bioenergy and Food Production—A German Survey on Structure and Developments of Anaerobic Digestion in Organic Farming Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-24, August.
    17. Vorotnikova, Ekaterina & Seale, James L, 2014. "The Effect of Energy Policy Act (EPA-2005) on Agricultural Land Allocation Dynamics in the United States," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162553, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Susanne Theuerl & Christiane Herrmann & Monika Heiermann & Philipp Grundmann & Niels Landwehr & Ulrich Kreidenweis & Annette Prochnow, 2019. "The Future Agricultural Biogas Plant in Germany: A Vision," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-32, January.
    19. Ching-Cheng Shen & Yen-Rung Chang & Der-Jen Liu, 2020. "Rural Tourism and Environmental Sustainability—A Study on a Model for Assessing the Developmental Potential of Organic Agritourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Malkamäki, Arttu & Korhonen, Jaana E. & Berghäll, Sami & Berg Rustas, Carolina & Bernö, Hanna & Carreira, Ariane & D'Amato, Dalia & Dobrovolsky, Alexander & Giertliová, Blanka & Holmgren, Sara & Mark-, 2022. "Public perceptions of using forests to fuel the European bioeconomy: Findings from eight university cities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    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:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03718-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.