The True Costs and Benefits of Miscanthus Cultivation

Wagner, Moritz; Winkler, Bastian; Lask, Jan; Weik, Jan; Kiesel, Andreas; Koch, Mirjam C; Clifton‐Brown, John; Cossel, Moritz von

doi:10.3390/agronomy12123071

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 142 ] Nevertheless, the question remains to be critically discussed and considered on a case‐by‐case basis whether land sharing (industrial crops as AESs) or land sparing (either industrial crops or AESs) is preferable, also, for example, under aspects of air quality regulation (carbon sequestration in the soil) and environmental impacts such as acidification, eutrophication, and resource use. [ 143 , 144 ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[142] Nevertheless, the question remains to be critically discussed and considered on a case-by-case basis whether land sharing (industrial crops as AESs) or land sparing (either industrial crops or AESs) is preferable, also, for example, under aspects of air quality regulation (carbon sequestration in the soil) and environmental impacts such as acidification, eutrophication, and resource use. [143,144] Another example for this dilemma, the trade-off between provisioning and regulating ESs, are extensive cropping systems such as organic farming. [20,78,145] Organic farming can be seen as a kind of land sharing approach, as it allows for, to a certain extent, restored ecosystems at farm level [3] which support important ES other than provisioning ESs.…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services-at the Farm Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, research has intensified on how to evaluate and manage these ES to minimize environmental impacts of business and everyday life. [8] Concepts such as civic ecology, [9] sustainable development, [10][11][12] and the bioeconomy [13,14] are being rapidly operationalized and often integrate ecological practices into their implementation strategies, by way of how we interact with nature. In this regard, philosopher and scientist Aldo Leopold wrote in the mid-20th century: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." [15] Similarly, the paradigm of civic ecology [9] is founded in subjective philosophy, which aims to expand our awareness of the natural world and the systems in place.One of the fundamental practices in civic ecology is systems thinking, with the idea that individuals should form a relation to nature, like they do to a human community. Further, systems thinking is frequently used in science to understand how individuals interact with the system. For instance, an ecosystem shares this attribute, where a dynamically evolving system is influenced by interacting, individual elements including air, water, soil, microbes, plants, and animals. Unfortunately, this notion is often ignored, because the provisioning The current geological epoch is characterized by anthropogenic activity that greatly impacts on natural ecosystems and their integrity. The complex networks of ecosystem services (ESs) are often ignored because the provision of natural resources, such as food and industrial crops, is mistakenly viewed as an independent process separate from ecosystems and ignoring the impacts on ecosystems. Recently, research has intensified on how to evaluate and manage ES to minimize environmental impacts, but it remains unclear how to balance anthropogenic activity and ecosystem integrity. This paper reviews the main ESs at farm level including provisioning, regulating, habitat, and cultural services. For these ESs, synergies are outlined and evaluated along with the respective practices (e.g., cover-and intercropping) and ES suppliers (e.g., pollinators and biocontrol agents). Further, several farm-level ES trade-offs are discussed along with a proposal for their evaluation. Finally, a framework for stakeholder approaches specific to farm-level ES is put forward, along with an outlook on how existing precision agriculture technologies can be adapted for improved assessment of ES bundles. This is believed to provide a useful framework for both decision makers and stakeholders to facilitate the development of more sustainable and resilient farming systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services-at the Farm Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An Adapted Indicator Framework for Evaluating the Potential Contribution of Bioeconomy Approaches to Agricultural Systems Resilience

Lewandowski,

von Cossel,

Winkler

et al. 2024

Advanced Sustainable Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reviews a variety of “bioeconomy approaches” (BAs) to assess their potential contribution to resilience in agricultural systems, focusing on benefits that can improve multi‐functionality regarding private and public goods. It is based on Meuwissen et al.'s framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Drawing on literature and expert knowledge, this indicator framework is adapted to develop a new framework which is then applied to seven contrasting BAs (miscanthus, perennial flowering wild plant mixtures, permanent grassland, nutrient recycling, agrivoltaics, urban agriculture, and microalgae). The major outcomes are: 1) the extended indicator framework can help evaluate BAs for their potential to foster resilience in future agricultural systems, 2) all BAs are characterized by their ability to provide multiple private and public goods simultaneously, 3) the strongest contribution of BAs to public goods is their function in maintaining the good condition of natural resources and resource‐use efficiency, 4) all BAs can enhance resilience in agricultural systems by contributing diversity, multifunctionality, environmental sustainability, and autonomy, 5) the mitigation of potential drawbacks of BAs implementation requires ex‐ante assessment, favorable BAs combinations, and stakeholder involvement, 6) context‐specific analysis of each BAs is required to assess their qualitative and quantitative contribution to resilience.

show abstract

Exploring the total cost of whole fresh, fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables

Rasines,

Morera,

San Miguel

et al. 2024

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The food industry should evolve towards new business models which take into account the damage cost in decision making, considering the impact that its products generate on the natural and human environment. Hence, the present study aims to calculate the damage cost caused by the production of whole fresh (as average of potatoes, aubergines, and broccoli), and processed vegetables (fresh-cut and pre-cooked). Methods The environmental life cycle approach was carried out per kilogram of assessed products (from cradle to the entrance of the market). The foreground Life Cycle Inventory was obtained from engineering procurement and construction projects of the whole fresh and processed vegetables industries. The Ecoinvent 3.8 and Agribalyse 3.0.1 databases were used for the background inventory. The ReCiPe 2016 method was used with a hierarchical perspective, evaluating eighteen midpoint categories as well as the endpoint categories (human health, ecosystems, and resources). The monetisation of these environmental impacts was then calculated using the endpoint monetisation factors developed by Ponsioen et al. (Monetisation of sustainability impacts of food production and consumption. Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen, 2020) for each product. It should be noted that this study does not include a comparative assessment. This study does not intend to compare the results for the three vegetable groups. Results and discussion The damage costs were 0.16 €/kg for whole fresh vegetables, 0.37 €/kg for fresh-cut vegetables and 0.41 €/kg for pre-cooked vegetables. The agricultural production stage contributed most to these total damage costs due to the impact produced on land use and global warming in midpoint categories and human health and ecosystems in endpoint categories. In addition, the damage cost due to fossil resource scarcity (midpoint) and resource scarcity (endpoint) was mainly caused by the plastic packaging of fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables. The total cost was 1.02 €/kg for whole fresh vegetables, 2.99 €/kg for fresh-cut vegetables, and 3.43 €/kg for pre-cooked vegetables. Conclusions These results suggest that some efforts should be made to reduce both environmental impacts and damage costs. For instance, to improve agricultural production, special attention should be paid to fertilisation and water consumption. Additionally, new packaging options should be explored as well as the inclusion of renewable sources in the electricity grid, and finally, on transporting the finished products to the market, by using trucks that run on cleaner fuels. Graphical abstract

show abstract

The True Costs and Benefits of Miscanthus Cultivation

Cited by 8 publications

References 41 publications

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

An Adapted Indicator Framework for Evaluating the Potential Contribution of Bioeconomy Approaches to Agricultural Systems Resilience

Exploring the total cost of whole fresh, fresh-cut and pre-cooked vegetables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About