IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i6p4941-d1093266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Carbon Footprint Estimates Depend on the LCA Modelling Approach Adopted? A Case Study of Bread Wheat Grown in a Crop-Rotation System

Author

Listed:
  • Sara González-García

    (CRETUS Institute, Department of Chemical Engineering, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain)

  • Fernando Almeida

    (Department of Crop Production and Engineering Projects, High Polytechnich School of Engineering, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain)

  • Miguel Brandão

    (Division of Sustainability Assessment and Management, Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

This study aims to assess the impact of global warming on winter wheat cultivation under different rotation systems with potato, maize or oilseed rape over a six-year period in the region of Galicia, Spain, to identify the rotation system most favorable from a climate change perspective. An attributional life cycle assessment (ALCA) with economic allocation (retrospective assessment of impacts) and a consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) with system expansion (impacts of a change) were performed to identify discrepancies and differences in the results in this impact category and thus in the decision supported by the farmers, whose main goal is to produce wheat grain for bread purposes with the lowest carbon footprint. The global warming results modelled with ALCA and CLCA can be contradictory. In general, the climate change impact was considerably higher when modelled with CLCA than with ALCA. Farming activities were consistently identified as hotspots when using both CLCA and ALCA, but other hotspots differed in terms of their contributions. Concerning the ranking of cropping systems that produce grain with the lowest greenhouse gases emission levels, contradictory results were identified in some cases between the LCA modelling approaches. Nevertheless, the cultivation of native winter wheat under ecological management is always the preferred choice, regardless of the approach. However, wheat rotation with potato is preferrable in the ALCA, and with maize in the CLCA. The assumptions required to perform a CLCA have a large impact on results. The allocation of burdens between the co-products in the ALCA involves a level of uncertainty since discrepancies arise with the selection of the allocation procedure. Thus, the assumptions made affect the results considerably and have a direct effect on the final conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara González-García & Fernando Almeida & Miguel Brandão, 2023. "Do Carbon Footprint Estimates Depend on the LCA Modelling Approach Adopted? A Case Study of Bread Wheat Grown in a Crop-Rotation System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:4941-:d:1093266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4941/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4941/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Thomas Schaubroeck & Simon Schaubroeck & Reinout Heijungs & Alessandra Zamagni & Miguel Brandão & Enrico Benetto, 2021. "Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-47, July.
    3. 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.
    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. Kofi Armah Boakye-Yiadom & Alessio Ilari & Valentina Bisinella & Ester Foppa Pedretti & Daniele Duca, 2023. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Frozen Peas Production from Conventional and Organic Farming in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Rafiee, Shahin & Omid, Mahmoud & Mousazadeh, Hossein, 2013. "Applying data envelopment analysis approach to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emission of wheat production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 588-593.
    2. Kazemi, Hossein & Bourkheili, Saeid Hassanpour & Kamkar, Behnam & Soltani, Afshin & Gharanjic, Kambiz & Nazari, Noor Mohammad, 2016. "Estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and energy use efficiency (EUE) analysis in rainfed canola production (case study: Golestan province, Iran)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 694-700.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Vlontzos, G. & Pardalos, P.M., 2017. "Assess and prognosticate green house gas emissions from agricultural production of EU countries, by implementing, DEA Window analysis and artificial neural networks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 155-162.
    7. 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.
    8. Alireza Taghdisian & Sandra G. F. Bukkens & Mario Giampietro, 2022. "A Societal Metabolism Approach to Effectively Analyze the Water–Energy–Food Nexus in an Agricultural Transboundary River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-25, July.
    9. Georgios Gaidajis & Ilias Kakanis, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Nitrate and Compound Fertilizers Production—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Zhao, Rongqin & Liu, Ying & Tian, Mengmeng & Ding, Minglei & Cao, Lianhai & Zhang, Zhanping & Chuai, Xiaowei & Xiao, Liangang & Yao, Lunguang, 2018. "Impacts of water and land resources exploitation on agricultural carbon emissions: The water-land-energy-carbon nexus," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 480-492.
    11. Sara Ilahi & Yongchang Wu & Muhammad Ahsan Ali Raza & Wenshan Wei & Muhammad Imran & Lyankhua Bayasgalankhuu, 2019. "Optimization Approach for Improving Energy Efficiency and Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emission of Wheat Crop using Data Envelopment Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Pritpal Singh & Gurdeep Singh & G. P. S. Sodhi, 2022. "Data envelopment analysis based optimization for improving net ecosystem carbon and energy budget in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivation: methods and a case study of north-western India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2079-2119, February.
    13. Kumar, Rohit & Bhardwaj, Arvind & Singh, Lakhwinder Pal & Singh, Gurraj, 2023. "Quantifying ecological impacts: A comparative life cycle assessment of conventional and organic potato cultivation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 486(C).
    14. Nariê Rinke Dias de Souza & Alexandre Souza & Mateus Ferreira Chagas & Thayse Aparecida Dourado Hernandes & Otávio Cavalett, 2022. "Addressing the contributions of electricity from biomass in Brazil in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals using life cycle assessment methods," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 980-995, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Bakhshandeh, Esmaeil & Jamali, Mohsen & Emadi, Mostafa & Francaviglia, Rosa, 2022. "Greenhouse gas emissions and financial analysis of rice paddy production scenarios in northern Iran," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    17. Uzlu, Ergun & Akpınar, Adem & Özturk, Hasan Tahsin & Nacar, Sinan & Kankal, Murat, 2014. "Estimates of hydroelectric generation using neural networks with the artificial bee colony algorithm for Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 638-647.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:4941-:d:1093266. 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.