足迹农场:三种温室气体计算器的比较

Emma Keller, M. Chin, Veronica Chorkulak, R. Clift, Yvette Faber, Jacquetta Lee, Henry King, Llorenç Milà i Canals, M. Stabile, C. Stickler, N. Viart
{"title":"足迹农场:三种温室气体计算器的比较","authors":"Emma Keller, M. Chin, Veronica Chorkulak, R. Clift, Yvette Faber, Jacquetta Lee, Henry King, Llorenç Milà i Canals, M. Stabile, C. Stickler, N. Viart","doi":"10.1080/20430779.2014.984609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Agriculture and forestry (including land use changes) contribute approximately 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally, but have a significant mitigation potential. Several activities to reduce GHGs at a landscape scale are under development (e.g. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation activities or Clean Development Mechanism projects) but these will not be effective without improvements at the basic management scale: the farm. A number of farm-level GHG calculators have been developed; to increase farmers awareness of the GHG impacts of their management practices; to aid decision-support for mitigation actions; and to enable farmers to calculate and communicate their GHG emissions, whether for their own records, as a prerequisite to supply chain certification, or as part of larger scale mechanisms. This paper compares three farm-level GHG calculators with significant potential influence. It demonstrates how the tools differ in output when using the same input data and highlights in detail what lies behind these differences. It then discusses more generally some potential implications of using different calculators and the important considerations that must be made, thus helping future tool users or developers to interpret results and better achieve consistent and comparable results.","PeriodicalId":411329,"journal":{"name":"Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Footprinting farms: a comparison of three GHG calculators\",\"authors\":\"Emma Keller, M. Chin, Veronica Chorkulak, R. Clift, Yvette Faber, Jacquetta Lee, Henry King, Llorenç Milà i Canals, M. Stabile, C. Stickler, N. Viart\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20430779.2014.984609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Agriculture and forestry (including land use changes) contribute approximately 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally, but have a significant mitigation potential. Several activities to reduce GHGs at a landscape scale are under development (e.g. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation activities or Clean Development Mechanism projects) but these will not be effective without improvements at the basic management scale: the farm. A number of farm-level GHG calculators have been developed; to increase farmers awareness of the GHG impacts of their management practices; to aid decision-support for mitigation actions; and to enable farmers to calculate and communicate their GHG emissions, whether for their own records, as a prerequisite to supply chain certification, or as part of larger scale mechanisms. This paper compares three farm-level GHG calculators with significant potential influence. It demonstrates how the tools differ in output when using the same input data and highlights in detail what lies behind these differences. It then discusses more generally some potential implications of using different calculators and the important considerations that must be made, thus helping future tool users or developers to interpret results and better achieve consistent and comparable results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":411329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20430779.2014.984609\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20430779.2014.984609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

农业和林业(包括土地利用变化)贡献了全球约30%的人为温室气体(GHG)排放,但具有巨大的减缓潜力。目前正在开展若干在景观尺度上减少温室气体的活动(例如减少毁林和森林退化活动造成的排放或清洁发展机制项目),但如果不改善基本管理尺度:农场,这些活动将不会有效。已经开发了一些农场级温室气体计算器;提高农民对其管理做法对温室气体影响的认识;为缓解行动提供决策支持;并使农民能够计算和通报他们的温室气体排放量,无论是作为他们自己的记录,作为供应链认证的先决条件,还是作为更大规模机制的一部分。本文比较了三种具有显著潜在影响的农场级温室气体计算器。本文演示了使用相同输入数据时这些工具在输出方面的差异,并详细介绍了这些差异背后的原因。然后更广泛地讨论了使用不同计算器的一些潜在含义和必须考虑的重要事项,从而帮助未来的工具用户或开发人员解释结果并更好地获得一致和可比较的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Footprinting farms: a comparison of three GHG calculators
Agriculture and forestry (including land use changes) contribute approximately 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally, but have a significant mitigation potential. Several activities to reduce GHGs at a landscape scale are under development (e.g. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation activities or Clean Development Mechanism projects) but these will not be effective without improvements at the basic management scale: the farm. A number of farm-level GHG calculators have been developed; to increase farmers awareness of the GHG impacts of their management practices; to aid decision-support for mitigation actions; and to enable farmers to calculate and communicate their GHG emissions, whether for their own records, as a prerequisite to supply chain certification, or as part of larger scale mechanisms. This paper compares three farm-level GHG calculators with significant potential influence. It demonstrates how the tools differ in output when using the same input data and highlights in detail what lies behind these differences. It then discusses more generally some potential implications of using different calculators and the important considerations that must be made, thus helping future tool users or developers to interpret results and better achieve consistent and comparable results.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信