应用环境扩展投入产出数据估算澳大利亚包装食品和饮料的温室气体排放量

IF 9.8 1区 社会学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Maria Shahid , Allison Gaines , Pankti Shah , Michalis Hadjikakou , Bruce Neal
{"title":"应用环境扩展投入产出数据估算澳大利亚包装食品和饮料的温室气体排放量","authors":"Maria Shahid ,&nbsp;Allison Gaines ,&nbsp;Pankti Shah ,&nbsp;Michalis Hadjikakou ,&nbsp;Bruce Neal","doi":"10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Input-output tables for national economies are widely available and may provide an established mechanism for estimating environmental impacts of industry sectors. We used environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) analysis to estimate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) for Australian packaged foods and beverages and compared the findings to those derived from life cycle analysis (LCA). GHGe intensities in purchaser prices were used alongside corresponding median prices per kilogram from NielsenIQ Homescan, a nationally representative database with food prices. Applying GHGe estimates to a 2019 Australian packaged food database, we reported median and interquartile range (IQR) GHGe per kilogram, comparing them with LCA-derived estimates. EEIO-derived intensities were estimated for 23,550 products, and the median overall GHGe based on EEIO data was 6.87 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 4.20 to 10.5). LCA-derived estimates were comparatively lower, showing a median overall GHGe of 2.42 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 1.41 to 5.00) using Poore and Nemecek data and 2.35 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 1.24 to 4.53) using FoodSwitch. Despite differences in magnitude, EEIO-derived data discriminated between the highest emitting categories in alignment with the LCA-based approaches. Future work is required to understand the discrepancies and make the EEIO method a compelling alternative to LCA-based approaches.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":309,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 107646"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925524002336/pdfft?md5=b44c31baa08cd3ccadde8ca89f8e9ae5&pid=1-s2.0-S0195925524002336-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of environmentally extended input-output data to estimate greenhouse gas emissions attributable to packaged foods and beverages in Australia\",\"authors\":\"Maria Shahid ,&nbsp;Allison Gaines ,&nbsp;Pankti Shah ,&nbsp;Michalis Hadjikakou ,&nbsp;Bruce Neal\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107646\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Input-output tables for national economies are widely available and may provide an established mechanism for estimating environmental impacts of industry sectors. We used environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) analysis to estimate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) for Australian packaged foods and beverages and compared the findings to those derived from life cycle analysis (LCA). GHGe intensities in purchaser prices were used alongside corresponding median prices per kilogram from NielsenIQ Homescan, a nationally representative database with food prices. Applying GHGe estimates to a 2019 Australian packaged food database, we reported median and interquartile range (IQR) GHGe per kilogram, comparing them with LCA-derived estimates. EEIO-derived intensities were estimated for 23,550 products, and the median overall GHGe based on EEIO data was 6.87 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 4.20 to 10.5). LCA-derived estimates were comparatively lower, showing a median overall GHGe of 2.42 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 1.41 to 5.00) using Poore and Nemecek data and 2.35 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 1.24 to 4.53) using FoodSwitch. Despite differences in magnitude, EEIO-derived data discriminated between the highest emitting categories in alignment with the LCA-based approaches. Future work is required to understand the discrepancies and make the EEIO method a compelling alternative to LCA-based approaches.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Impact Assessment Review\",\"volume\":\"109 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107646\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925524002336/pdfft?md5=b44c31baa08cd3ccadde8ca89f8e9ae5&pid=1-s2.0-S0195925524002336-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Impact Assessment Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925524002336\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925524002336","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国民经济投入产出表可广泛获取,可为估算工业部门的环境影响提供既定机制。我们使用环境扩展投入产出(EEIO)分析来估算澳大利亚包装食品和饮料的温室气体排放量(GHGe),并将结果与生命周期分析(LCA)得出的结果进行比较。购买者价格中的 GHGe 强度与 NielsenIQ Homescan(一个具有全国代表性的食品价格数据库)中相应的每公斤中位价格一起使用。将温室气体估计值应用于 2019 年澳大利亚包装食品数据库,我们报告了每公斤温室气体的中位数和四分位数间距 (IQR),并将其与 LCA 得出的估计值进行了比较。我们对 23,550 种产品的 EEIO 排放强度进行了估算,基于 EEIO 数据的总体温室气体当量中位数为 6.87 千克 CO2eq/千克(IQR 为 4.20 至 10.5)。生命周期评估(LCA)得出的估计值相对较低,使用 Poore 和 Nemecek 数据得出的总体温室气体当量中值为 2.42 千克 CO2eq /千克(IQR 1.41 至 5.00),使用 FoodSwitch 数据得出的总体温室气体当量中值为 2.35 千克 CO2eq /千克(IQR 1.24 至 4.53)。尽管在幅度上存在差异,但 EEIO 派生数据可区分最高排放类别,与基于生命周期评估的方法一致。要了解这些差异,并使 EEIO 方法成为基于生命周期评估方法的令人信服的替代方法,还需要今后的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Application of environmentally extended input-output data to estimate greenhouse gas emissions attributable to packaged foods and beverages in Australia

Input-output tables for national economies are widely available and may provide an established mechanism for estimating environmental impacts of industry sectors. We used environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) analysis to estimate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) for Australian packaged foods and beverages and compared the findings to those derived from life cycle analysis (LCA). GHGe intensities in purchaser prices were used alongside corresponding median prices per kilogram from NielsenIQ Homescan, a nationally representative database with food prices. Applying GHGe estimates to a 2019 Australian packaged food database, we reported median and interquartile range (IQR) GHGe per kilogram, comparing them with LCA-derived estimates. EEIO-derived intensities were estimated for 23,550 products, and the median overall GHGe based on EEIO data was 6.87 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 4.20 to 10.5). LCA-derived estimates were comparatively lower, showing a median overall GHGe of 2.42 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 1.41 to 5.00) using Poore and Nemecek data and 2.35 kg CO2eq / kg (IQR 1.24 to 4.53) using FoodSwitch. Despite differences in magnitude, EEIO-derived data discriminated between the highest emitting categories in alignment with the LCA-based approaches. Future work is required to understand the discrepancies and make the EEIO method a compelling alternative to LCA-based approaches.

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
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
10.10%
发文量
200
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Impact Assessment Review is an interdisciplinary journal that serves a global audience of practitioners, policymakers, and academics involved in assessing the environmental impact of policies, projects, processes, and products. The journal focuses on innovative theory and practice in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Papers are expected to present innovative ideas, be topical, and coherent. The journal emphasizes concepts, methods, techniques, approaches, and systems related to EIA theory and practice.
×
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