从物质流或生命周期分析的角度评估组织的水-能源-粮食关系?比较研究

IF 7.2 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Future Foods Pub Date : 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100444
Leonardo Vásquez-Ibarra , Ricardo Rebolledo-Leiva , Eduardo Entrena-Barbero , Mario Fernández , Gumersindo Feijoo , Sara González-García , María Teresa Moreira
{"title":"从物质流或生命周期分析的角度评估组织的水-能源-粮食关系?比较研究","authors":"Leonardo Vásquez-Ibarra ,&nbsp;Ricardo Rebolledo-Leiva ,&nbsp;Eduardo Entrena-Barbero ,&nbsp;Mario Fernández ,&nbsp;Gumersindo Feijoo ,&nbsp;Sara González-García ,&nbsp;María Teresa Moreira","doi":"10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Nowadays, food production systems play a relevant role as the steady increase of global population and food demand. The water-energy-food (WEF) nexus is a suitable approach to tackle resources management associated with these three pillars recognizing synergies and trade-offs. Different approaches have been used in the literature to measure the WEF nexus, being material flow analysis (MFA) and life cycle assessment (LCA), two of the most proven methodologies. The MFA approach is based on the amount of resources consumed, while using the LCA perspective considers all flows of the system (LCA footprints approach) or considering only the flows associated with water, energy, and food pillars as the inventory data (WEF-LCA approach). This manuscript compares the three mentioned approaches to identify their strengths and weaknesses. To do this, a sample of 100 Spanish dairy farms is analysed, where a single WEF nexus index (WEFni) is obtained using Data Envelopment Analysis. Results show that only four farms achieved a WEFni equal to 100 in all approaches, while the main difference between them is the number and type of resources considered for calculating the WEF nexus, which could imply a partial identification of hotspots of food systems.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34474,"journal":{"name":"Future Foods","volume":"10 ","pages":"Article 100444"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833524001503/pdfft?md5=b0e048150b4d207d9ee548b80ab00593&pid=1-s2.0-S2666833524001503-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A material flow or life cycle analysis perspective for the Water-Energy-Food nexus assessment of organisations? A comparative study\",\"authors\":\"Leonardo Vásquez-Ibarra ,&nbsp;Ricardo Rebolledo-Leiva ,&nbsp;Eduardo Entrena-Barbero ,&nbsp;Mario Fernández ,&nbsp;Gumersindo Feijoo ,&nbsp;Sara González-García ,&nbsp;María Teresa Moreira\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100444\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Nowadays, food production systems play a relevant role as the steady increase of global population and food demand. The water-energy-food (WEF) nexus is a suitable approach to tackle resources management associated with these three pillars recognizing synergies and trade-offs. Different approaches have been used in the literature to measure the WEF nexus, being material flow analysis (MFA) and life cycle assessment (LCA), two of the most proven methodologies. The MFA approach is based on the amount of resources consumed, while using the LCA perspective considers all flows of the system (LCA footprints approach) or considering only the flows associated with water, energy, and food pillars as the inventory data (WEF-LCA approach). This manuscript compares the three mentioned approaches to identify their strengths and weaknesses. To do this, a sample of 100 Spanish dairy farms is analysed, where a single WEF nexus index (WEFni) is obtained using Data Envelopment Analysis. Results show that only four farms achieved a WEFni equal to 100 in all approaches, while the main difference between them is the number and type of resources considered for calculating the WEF nexus, which could imply a partial identification of hotspots of food systems.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future Foods\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100444\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833524001503/pdfft?md5=b0e048150b4d207d9ee548b80ab00593&pid=1-s2.0-S2666833524001503-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future Foods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833524001503\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future Foods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833524001503","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如今,随着全球人口和粮食需求的稳步增长,粮食生产系统发挥着重要作用。水-能源-粮食(WEF)关系是解决与这三大支柱相关的资源管理问题的一种合适方法,它承认协同作用和权衡取舍。文献中使用了不同的方法来衡量水-能源-粮食关系,其中物质流分析法(MFA)和生命周期评估法(LCA)是两种最行之有效的方法。物质流分析法以消耗的资源量为基础,而生命周期评估法则考虑系统的所有流(生命周期评估足迹法),或仅考虑与水、能源和食物支柱相关的流作为库存数据(WEF-LCA 法)。本手稿对上述三种方法进行了比较,以确定其优缺点。为此,我们对 100 个西班牙奶牛场进行了抽样分析,利用数据包络分析法获得了单一的 WEF 关系指数 (WEFni)。结果表明,在所有方法中,只有四个牧场的 WEFni 值等于 100,而它们之间的主要区别在于计算 WEF 关系时所考虑的资源数量和类型,这可能意味着对食品系统热点的部分识别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A material flow or life cycle analysis perspective for the Water-Energy-Food nexus assessment of organisations? A comparative study

Nowadays, food production systems play a relevant role as the steady increase of global population and food demand. The water-energy-food (WEF) nexus is a suitable approach to tackle resources management associated with these three pillars recognizing synergies and trade-offs. Different approaches have been used in the literature to measure the WEF nexus, being material flow analysis (MFA) and life cycle assessment (LCA), two of the most proven methodologies. The MFA approach is based on the amount of resources consumed, while using the LCA perspective considers all flows of the system (LCA footprints approach) or considering only the flows associated with water, energy, and food pillars as the inventory data (WEF-LCA approach). This manuscript compares the three mentioned approaches to identify their strengths and weaknesses. To do this, a sample of 100 Spanish dairy farms is analysed, where a single WEF nexus index (WEFni) is obtained using Data Envelopment Analysis. Results show that only four farms achieved a WEFni equal to 100 in all approaches, while the main difference between them is the number and type of resources considered for calculating the WEF nexus, which could imply a partial identification of hotspots of food systems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Future Foods
Future Foods Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Food Science
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
97
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Mechanistic insights to the strong antioxidative capacity of lingonberry press cake during recovery of fish protein ingredients Resource use efficiency: Developing a generic framework for protein production systems and its application on dairy and fish New fermented plant-based ingredients in sourdough breads enhanced nutritional value and impacted on gut microbiota Whey protein-based bigels for co-encapsulation of curcumin and gallic acid: Characterization, stability and release kinetics Fat replacers in food system: A focus on ingredients, fabrication methods, and applications in food products
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1