Ecological Footprint Analysis of Canned Sweet Corn
Treść / Zawartość
There has been a notable increase in both consumer knowledge and awareness regarding the ecological benefits of green products and services. Manufacturers now pay more attention to green, environmentally friendly production processes. Two significant tools that can facilitate such a goal are life cycle assessment (LCA) and ecological footprint (EF). This study aimed to analyse and determine the damage to the environment, focusing on the canned fruit and vegetable processing. Canned sweet corn (340 g) was selected for the case study. All inputs and outputs associated with the product system boundary were collected through field surveys. The acquired inventory was then analysed and evaluated using both LCA and EF methodology. The results were converted into an area of biologically productive land and presented as global hectares (gha). The ecological footprint of one can of sweet corn was calculated as 6.51E-04 gha. The three factors with the highest impact on ecological footprint value were the corn kernels used in the process, the packaging and steam, equivalent to 2.93E-04 gha, 1.19E-04 gha and 1.17E-04 gha respectively. To promote the sustainable development, the company should develop new technology or utilize better management techniques to reduce the ecological footprint of canned food production.
Bibliogr. 30 poz., tab., rys.
- 1. Castellani V., Sala S. 2012. Ecological footprint and life cycle assessment in the sustainability assessment of tourism activities, Ecol Indic, 16, 135–147.
- 2. Cerutti AK., Bagliani M., Beccaro GL., Gioelli F., Balsari P., Bounous G. 2011. Evaluation of the sustainability of swine manure fertilization in orchard through ecological footprint analysis: results from a case study in Italy, J Clean Prod, 19, 318–324.
- 3. Cuadra M., Bjorklund J. 2007. Assessment of economic and ecological carrying capacity of agricultural crops in Nicaragua, Ecol Indic, 7, 133–149.
- 4. Dallinger J. 2011. Oil palm development in Thailand: economic, social and environmental consideration, Oil Palm Expansion in South East Asia: trends and implications for local communities and indigenous people. [http://www.forestpeoples.org/ sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/11/chapter-1-oil-palm-development-thailand-economic-social-and-environmental-considerations.pdf]
- 5. De Camillis C., Raggi A., Petti L. 2010. Tourism LCA: state of the art and perspectives, Int J Life Cycle Ass, 15, 148–155.
- 6. DEDE. 2014. Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Thailand Alternative Energy Situation 2014.
- 7. Diaz E., Fernandez J., Ordenez S., Canto N., Gonzalez A. 2012. Carbon and ecological footprints as tools for evaluating the environmental impact of coal mine ventilation air, Ecol Indic, 18, 126–130.
- 8. Ewing B., Reed A., Rizk S., Galli A., Wackernagel M., Kitzes J. 2008. Calculation methodology for the National Footprint Account 2008, Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
- 9. FAOSTAT2015, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistic Division. 13th October, 2015.
- 10. Global Footprint Network. 2009. Ecological Footprint Standards 2009, Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
- 11. Global Footprint Network. 2010. Living Planet Report 2010. Global Footprint Network, London.
- 12. IGBP. 2013. Ocean Acidification Summary for policymakers, in Third Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 world, International Geosphere- Biosphere Programme: Stockholm, Sweden.
- 13. ISO 14040. 2006. ISO 14040:2006-Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-principles and framework, International Organization for standardization, Geneva.
- 14. Irrigation Water Management (IWM). 2011. The study on reference crop evapotanspiration by Penman-Montheith method of the Irrigation Water Management Division, Royal Irrigation Department, Bangkok, Thailand.
- 15. Kissinger M., Gottlieb D. 2012. From global to place oriented hectares-the case of Israel’s wheat ecological footprint and its implications for sustainable resource supply, Ecol Indic, 16, 51–57.
- 16. Kitzes J., Galli A., Rizk S., Reed A., Wackernagel M. 2008. Guidebook to the National Footprint Account: 2008 Edition, Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
- 17. Lee YJ., Peng LP. 2014. Taiwan’s ecological footprint (1994-2011), Sustainability, 6, 6170–6187.
- 18. Mekonnen MM., Hoekstra Y. 2011. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products, Hydrol Earth Syst Sc, 15, 1577–1600.
- 19. National Corn Growers Association. 2013. World of Corn: Unlimited Possibilities.
- 20. Niccolucci V., Galli A., Kitzes J., Pulselli RM., Borsa S., Marchettini N. 2008. Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines, Agr Ecosyst Environ, 128, 162–166.
- 21. Ohimain, EI., Izah, SC., Obieze, FAU. 2013. Material-mass balance of smallholder oil palm processing in the Niger Delta, Nigeria, Adv J Food Sci and Tech, 5(3), 289–294.
- 22. Rees W. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out, Environ Urban, 4, 121–130.
- 23. Roos E., Sundberg C., Hansson P. 2010. Uncertainties in the carbon footprint of food products: a case study on table potatoes, Int J Life Cycle Ass, 15, 478–488.
- 24. Scotti M., Bondavalli C., Bodini A. 2012. Ecological footprint as a tool for local sustainability: the municipality of Piacenza (Italy) as a case study, Environ Impact Asses, 29, 39–50.
- 25. Solis-Guzman J., Marrero M., Ramires de Arellano A. 2013. Methodology for determining the ecological footprint of the construction of residential buildings in Andalusia (Spain), Ecol Indic, 25, 239–249.
- 26. Thaiusa B. 2002. Silvicultural management of private eucalyptus plantations for wood chips in Thailand, Proceedings of the International Symposium Eucalyptus Plantations (Research, Management and Development) 1-6 September 2002.
- 27. Wachernagel M., Rees W. 1996. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth, New Society, Gabriola Island, BC.
- 28. Wada Y. 1993. The appropriated carrying capacity of tomato production: the Ecological Footprint of hydroponic greenhouse versus mechanized open field operations. M.A. Thesis. School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
- 29. Yoshikawa N., Amano K., Shimada K. 2011. Ecological footprint evaluation of Japanese domestic food consumption considering water footprint, in ICM (the dahlem cube, Berlin) 28-31 August 2011.
- 30. Zamagni A., Buttol P., Porta PL., Buonamici R., Masoni P., Guiness J., Heijungs R., Ekavall T., Bersani R., Bienkowska A., Pretato U. 2008.Critical review of the current research needs and limitation related to ISO-LCA practice ENEA, Bologna, 106.
Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.