IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jda/journl/vol.49year2015issue6pp49-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the relationship between grain crop consumption in Australia and environmental sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Gazi A. Uddin*
  • Khorshed Alam
  • Jeff Gow

    (University of Southern Queensland, Australia
    University of Southern Queensland, Australia & Stellenbosch University, South Africa)

Abstract

The whole food system which involves agricultural production, food processing and packaging, distribution and retail as well as consumption requires inputs such as land, water, fertiliser, pesticides, herbicides and energy, which are responsible for environmental degradation. The main aim of this paper is to determine the size of the ecological footprint of grains consumption in Australia for evaluating the level of environmental sustainability. The ecological footprint methodology permits the monitoring of dominant threats to sustainability. One of the benefits of ecological footprint methodology is its capacity to distinguish between resources consumed and resources available and then reveal how ecologically sustainable those consumption patterns are. The study begins with an analysis of the ecological footprint of grain crops consumption, then analyses the biocapacity. The study concludes by making a comparison between ecological footprint and biocapacity and then assessing its sustainability of grain crops consumption. The paper uses both local and global yield data in terms of global hectare and local hectare respectively with inter-temporal time-series yield factors. This paper also uses production and consumption data on various grain crops. The refined method of determining the ecological footprint has provided a new assessment tool to gain insights into the environmental impacts of grain crops consumption. This method in this study had also highlighted the contribution of the EF as an indicator of environmental sustainability. Results indicate that the ecological footprint of grain consumption in Australia only exceeds biocapacity when the energy requirements of these crops are included in the evaluation. This study also reveals that that Australia’s grain consumption is unsustainable at the national scale, and still below the world-average ecological appropriation level. The size of the revealed ecological footprint are responsible for the amount of the grain consumption, energy inputs, the size of the population, the degree of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) gas emissions, and the amount of other farm inputs. This paper highlights the environmental significance of the ecological footprint of grain crops consumption in Australia. This paper also reinforces how intensely a sustainable future depends on the reshaping of the Australian grain industry. Finally, this paper discusses some of the implications of the method presented here for future footprint calculations and environmental sustainability. If Australia wants to shift to a smarter, more sustainable agricultural future; it must strive to shift to lower impact products and services, to increase the efficiency of the production through reducing energy inputs.

Suggested Citation

  • Gazi A. Uddin* & Khorshed Alam & Jeff Gow, 2015. "Estimating the relationship between grain crop consumption in Australia and environmental sustainability," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 49(6), pages 49-60, Special I.
  • Handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.49:year:2015:issue6:pp:49-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_developing_areas/v049/49.6.uddin.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biocapacity; Ecological Footprint; Equivalence Factor; Population; Yield Factors;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jda:journl:vol.49:year:2015:issue6:pp:49-60. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Abu N.M. Wahid (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbtnsus.html .

    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.