Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Source and Sample
2.2. Reassessment of the Environmental Impacts by Using the Updated Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment (SALCA) Approach
2.2.1. Models for the Estimation of Direct Field and Farm Emissions
- The losses of ammonia (NH3) from animal husbandry, manure management including manure application, and grazing were calculated according to the Agrammon model [30,31]. Emissions from mineral N fertilisers were estimated with emission factors according to EEA [32]. For some types of N fertilisers, different factors for pH above and below 7 applied. For a detailed description see Bystricky et al. [29] (Chapter 2.6);
- Direct and induced emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) were considered according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method, version 2006 [33]. Direct emissions came from the application of N fertiliser (factor 1% of N released as N2O) and incorporation of crop residues (1% of the N released as N2O). In addition to the direct emissions, induced emissions from ammonia and nitrate losses were considered. The respective factors were 1% for ammonia-N and 0.75% for nitrate-N. Emissions from manure storage were 0.5% of the N in slurry and liquid manure and 2% of the N in solid manure. A detailed description is provided in Bystricky et al. [29] (Chapter 2.8);
- Methane (CH4) emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management were calculated by using emission factors from IPCC [33] and considering the amount and quality of the feed and the manure management system. Methane emissions from dairy cows were calculated by the model of Kirchgessner et al. [34]. Further details on the approach used to estimate these emissions can be found in Bystricky et al. [29] (Chapter 2.9);
- Direct on-farm (fossil) carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions emerged as a consequence of the application of urea, lime and dolomite. For their calculation, the emission factors of IPCC [33] were used. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion like diesel or fuel oil were included in the respective life cycle inventories;
- Phosphorus (P) emissions were quantified using the approach developed by Prasuhn [35]. Three paths of P emissions to water were thereby included, namely run-off as phosphate and erosion as P to rivers, as well as leaching to ground water as phosphate. The land use category, the type of fertiliser, the quantity of P spread, and the characteristics and duration of soil cover (for erosion) were considered in the assessment;
- Nitrate (NO3−) leaching was estimated on a monthly basis by accounting for N mineralisation in the soil and N uptake by the vegetation, specific to each crop by the updated SALCA nitrate model [36]. If mineralisation exceeds uptake, nitrate leaching can potentially occur. In addition, the risk of nitrate leaching from fertiliser application during unfavourable periods was included in the assessment, considering the crop, month of application and the potential rooting depth;
- Heavy metal (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn) emissions were assessed by an input–output balance [37].
2.2.2. Impact Assessment Models
- Demand for non-renewable energy resources (in MJ eq.) (oil, coal and lignite, natural gas and uranium), using the upper heating or gross calorific value for fossil fuels according to Frischknecht et al. [40];
- Global warming potential over 100 years (in kg CO2 eq.), according to IPCC [41];
- Ozone formation potential (in m2.ppm.h) (so-called “summer smog”), according to the EDIP2003 method [42];
- Ozone depletion (in kg CFC11 eq.) as the impact of stratospheric ozone-depleting emissions, according to the EDIP2003 method [42];
- Terrestrial eutrophication potential (in m2) as the impact of the N losses to terrestrial ecosystems expressing the area of terrestrial ecosystem potentially damaged, according to the EDIP2003 method [42];
- N aquatic eutrophication potential (in N equivalents) as the impact of losses of N to the aquatic ecosystems according to the EDIP2003 method [42];
- P aquatic eutrophication potential (in P equivalents) as the impact of losses of P to the aquatic ecosystems according to the EDIP2003 method [42];
- Acidification potential (in m2) as the impact of acidifying substances released into ecosystems expressing the area of ecosystem potentially damaged, according to the EDIP2003 method [42];
- Terrestrial and aquatic ecotoxicity potentials (in kg 1,4-DB eq.) estimated according to the CML01 method [39];
- Human toxicity potential (in kg 1,4-DB eq.) as the impact of toxic pollutants on human health, quantified according to the CML01 method [39];
- Land competition (in m2a) was assessed using the CML01 method [39]. It was defined as the unweighted sum of all land areas occupied multiplied by their respective occupation time;
- Deforestation (in m2) was assessed by the balance of the areas transformed from and into forest and shrubland areas. It corresponds with the impact category natural land transformation in the ReCiPe method [43], but in addition to ReCiPe, shrubland was also considered;
- The use of phosphorus and potassium resources (in kg) was assessed at the inventory level, without applying a characterisation factor;
- Water deprivation was assessed as the sum of blue water withdrawal (ground and surface water in m3) corrected by the water stress index for Switzerland according to Pfister et al. [44]. The water stress index is derived from the ratio of annual water withdrawals and water availability and it reflects the “portion of consumptive water use that deprives other users of freshwater” [44] (p. 4099).
2.3. Off-farm and On-farm Environmental Impacts’ Decomposition
2.4. Farm Global Environmental Performance Indicators
2.5. Farm Local Environmental Performance Indicators
2.6. Farm Economic Performance Indicators
2.7. Statistical Approach for the Analysis of the Relationship between Farm Global Environmental Performance, Farm Local Environmental Performance and Farm Economic Performance
- (i)
- Farm global environmental performance indicators and farm local environmental performance indicators;
- (ii)
- Farm global environmental performance indicators and farm economic performance indicators;
- (iii)
- Farm local environmental performance indicators and farm economic performance indicators.
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of the Link between Farm Local and Global Environmental Performance
3.2. Analysis of the Link between Farm Environmental and Farm Economic Performance
3.2.1. Relationship between Farm Global Environmental Performance and Farm Economic Performance
3.2.2. Relationship between Farm Local Environmental Performance and Farm Economic Performance
4. Discussion
4.1. Main Findings
4.2. Discussion of the Main Findings
4.3. Implications of Our Findings for the Sustainable Intensification Debate
4.4. Limitations and Future Research Need
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Gerber, P.; Vellinga, T.; Opio, C.; Henderson, B.; Steinfeld, H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector. A life Cycle Assessment; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2010; p. 98. [Google Scholar]
- Garnett, T. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 2011, 36, S23–S32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korsaeth, A.; Jacobsen, A.Z.; Roer, A.G.; Henriksen, T.M.; Sonesson, U.; Bonesmo, H.; Skjelvåg, A.O.; Strømman, A.H. Environmental life cycle assessment of cereal and bread production in Norway. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A 2012, 62, 242–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thoma, G.; Popp, J.; Nutter, D.; Shonnard, D.; Ulrich, R.; Matlock, M.; Kim, D.S.; Neiderman, Z.; Kemper, N.; East, C.; et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from milk production and consumption in the United States: A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment circa 2008. Int. Dairy J. 2013, 31, S3–S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bystricky, M.; Alig, M.; Nemecek, T.; Gaillard, G. Ökobilanz Ausgewählter Schweizer Landwirtschaftsprodukte im Vergleich zum Import; Agroscope, Institut für Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften INH: Zurich, Switzerland, 2014; p. 176. [Google Scholar]
- Kulak, M.; Nemecek, T.; Frossard, E.; Chable, V.; Gaillard, G. Life cycle assessment of bread from several alternative food networks in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Repar, N.; Jan, P.; Dux, D.; Nemecek, T.; Doluschitz, R. Implementing farm-level environmental sustainability in environmental performance indicators: A combined global-local approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 692–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer, I.J.M. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 80, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haas, G.; Wetterich, F.; Geier, U. Life cycle assessment framework in agriculture on the farm level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2000, 5, 345–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halberg, N.; van der Werf, H.M.; Basset-Mens, C.; Dalgaard, R.; de Boer, I.J. Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2005, 96, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jan, P.; Dux, D.; Lips, M.; Alig, M.; Dumondel, M. On the link between economic and environmental performance of Swiss dairy farms of the alpine area. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 706–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payraudeau, S.; van der Werf, H.M. Environmental impact assessment for a farming region: A review of methods. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 107, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Werf, H.M.; Petit, J. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: A comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 93, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, F. Nitrogen balances at farm level as a tool to monitor effects of agri-environmental policy. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1998, 52, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oenema, O.; Boers, P.C.M.; Van Eerdt, M.M.; Fraters, B.; Van der Meer, H.G.; Roest, C.W.J.; Schröde, J.J.; Willems, W.J. Leaching of nitrate from agriculture to groundwater: The effect of policies and measures in the Netherlands. Environ. Pollut. 1998, 102, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, F.; Richner, W. (Eds.) Evaluation der Ökomassnahmen: Bereich Stickstoff und Phosphor; Schriftenreihe der FAL 57; Agroscope FAL Reckenholz: Zurich, Switzerland, 2005.
- Nevens, F.; Verbruggen, I.; Reheul, D.; Hofman, G. Farm gate nitrogen surpluses and nitrogen use efficiency of specialized dairy farms in Flanders: Evolution and future goals. Agric. Syst. 2006, 88, 142–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoang, V.-N.; Alauddin, M. Assessing the eco-environmental performance of agricultural production in OECD countries: The use of nitrogen flows and balance. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2010, 87, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jan, P.; Calabrese, C.; Lips, M. Determinants of nitrogen surplus at farm level in Swiss agriculture. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Milano, Italy, 8–14 August 2015.
- Mouron, P.; Scholz, R.W.; Nemecek, T.; Weber, O. Life cycle management on Swiss fruit farms: Relating environmental and income indicators for apple-growing. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58, 561–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomassen, M.A.; Dolman, M.A.; Van Calker, K.J.; De Boer, I.J.M. Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2278–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenollosa, M.L.; Ribal, J.; Lidón, A.; Bautista, I.; Juraske, R.; Clemente, G.; Sanjuan, N. Influence of management practices on economic and environmental performance of crops. A case study in Spanish horticulture. Agroecol. Sustain. Food 2014, 38, 635–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hersener, J.L.; Baumgartner, D.U.; Dux, D. (Eds.) Zentrale Auswertung von Ökobilanzen Landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe (ZA-ÖB)—Schlussbericht; Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART: Zurich, Switzerland, 2011; 148p.
- Gaillard, G.; Nemecek, T. Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment (SALCA): An integrated environmental assessment concept for agriculture. In Proceedings of the Conference on Integrated Assessment of Agriculture and Sustainable Development: Setting the Agenda for Science and Policy (AgSAP 2009), Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands, 10–12 March 2009; Wageningen University and Research Centre: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 134–135. [Google Scholar]
- Baumgartner, D.U.; Alig, M.; Dux, D.; Schmid, D.; Blaser, S. Material und Methoden. In Zentrale Auswertung von Ökobilanzen landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe (ZA-ÖB)—Schlussbericht; Hersener, J.L., Baumgartner, D.U., Dux, D., Eds.; Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART: Zurich, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hausheer Schnider, J. Wegleitung zum Merkmalskatalog der Zentralen Auswertung von Buchhaltungsdaten; Version WL3.7d; Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART: Zürich, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Alig, M.; Preschl, U.; Schwitter, K.; Waldvogel, T.; Wolff, V.; Wunderlich, A.; Zorn, A.; Gaillard, G. Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Klimaschutzmassnahmen zur Umsetzung auf landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben in der Schweiz. Agroscope Sci. 2015, 29, 160. [Google Scholar]
- Hischier, R.; Althaus, H.-J.; Bauer, C.; Doka, G.; Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Nemecek, T.; Simons, A.; Sutter, J.; Stucki, M.; et al. Documentation of Changes Implemented in Ecoinvent Data v2.1 and v2.2. Ecoinvent; Report No. 16; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bystricky, M.; Nemecek, T.; Baumgartner, D.U.; Gaillard, G. Meilenstein zum Forschungsprojekt 100800—Einzelbetriebliche Ökobilanzierung Landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe in Österreich (FarmLife)—Bericht zur Anpassung der SALCA-Modelle für FarmLife; Agroscope: Zurich, Switzerland, 2014; p. 41. [Google Scholar]
- Hochschule für Agrar-, Forst- und Lebensmittelwissenschaften (HAFL). Dokumentation Technische Parameter Modell Agrammon—Version 20.3.2013; Hochschule für Agrar-, Forst- und Lebensmittelwissenschaften: Zollikofen, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hochschule für Agrar-, Forst- und Lebensmittelwissenschaften (HAFL). Technische Parameter Modell Agrammon—Version 30.5.2013; Hochschule für Agrar-, Forst- und Lebensmittelwissenschaften: Zollikofen, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- European Environment Agency (EEA). EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013—Technical Guidance to Prepare National Emission Inventories; EEA Technical Report No. 12/2013; European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2013; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Agriculture, forestry and other land use. In 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES): Kanagawa, Japan, 2006; Volume 4, p. 673. [Google Scholar]
- Kirchgessner, M.; Windisch, W.; Müller, H.L. Nutritional factors for the quantification of methane production. In Ruminant Physiology: Digestion, Metabolism, Growth and Reproduction: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology; Ferdinand Enke Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 1995; pp. 291–315. [Google Scholar]
- Prasuhn, V. Erfassung der PO4-Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung—SALCA-Phosphor; Agroscope FAL Reckenholz: Zurich, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Richner, W.; Oberholzer, H.-R.; Freiermuth Knuchel, R.; Huguenin, O.; Ott, S.; Walther, U.; Nemecek, T. Modell zur Beurteilung des Nitratauswaschungspotenzials in Ökobilanzen—SALCA-NO3. Unter Berücksichtigung der Bewirtschaftung (Fruchtfolge, Bodenbearbeitung, N-Düngung), der mikrobiellen Nitratbildung im Boden, der Stickstoffaufnahme durch die Pflanzen und verschiedener Bodeneigenschaften. Agroscope Sci. 2014, 5, 60. [Google Scholar]
- Freiermuth, R. Modell zur Berechnung der Schwermetallflüsse in der Landwirtschaftlichen Ökobilanz; Agroscope FAL Zürich-Reckenholz: Zurich, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Hauschild, M.Z.; Potting, J.; Hertel, O.; Schöpp, W.; Bastrup-Birk, A. Spatial differentiation in the characterisation of photochemical ozone formation: The EDIP2003 methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 72–80. [Google Scholar]
- Guinée, J.B.; Gorrée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; De Koning, A.; Van Oers, L.; Wegener Sleeswijk, A.; Suh, S.; De Haes, H.A.U.; et al. Life Cycle Assessment—An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML): Den Haag/Leiden, The Netherlands, 2001; p. 11.
- Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.-J.; Doka, G.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Margni, M.; Spielmann, M. Implementation of Life Cycle Assessment Methods—Ecoinvent Data v1.1.; Ecoinvent Report; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (ecoinvent): Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2007; p. 996. [Google Scholar]
- Hauschild, M.Z.; Potting, J. Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment—The EDIP2003 Methodology; The Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency: Copenhagen, Dennmark, 2005.
- Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; De Schryver, A.; Struijs, J.; Van Zelm, R. A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at The Midpoint and the Endpoint Level; ReCiPe 2008, Report 1: Characterisation, 1st ed.Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM): Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2009; p. 126.
- Pfister, S.; Koehler, A.; Hellweg, S. Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4098–4104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- PRé Consultants. SimaPro 7.3.3; PRé Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Huppes, G.; Ishikawa, M. Eco-efficiency and its terminology. J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreau, V.; Weidema, B.P. The computational structure of environmental life cycle costing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1359–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blalock, H.M. Social Statistics, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, J.D. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences; Brooks/Cole Publishing: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- De Koeijer, T.J.; Wossink, G.A.A.; Struik, P.C.; Renkema, J.A. Measuring agricultural sustainability in terms of effciency: The case of Dutch sugar beet growers. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 66, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haas, G.; Wetterich, F.; Köpke, U. Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 83, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charles, R.; Jolliet, O.; Gaillard, G.; Pelleta, D. Environmental analysis of intensity level in wheat crop production using life cycle assessment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 113, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemecek, T.; Dubois, D.; Huguenin-Elie, O.; Gaillard, G. Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loos, J.; Abson, D.J.; Chappell, M.J.; Hanspach, J.; Mikulcak, F.; Tichit, M.; Fischer, J. Putting meaning back into ‘sustainable intensification’. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rockström, J.; Williams, J.; Daily, G.; Noble, A.; Matthews, N.; Gordon, L.; Wetterstrand, H.; DeClerck, F.; Shah, M.; Steduto, P.; et al. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tilman, D.; Balzer, C.; Hill, J.; Befort, B. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 20260–20264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mueller, N.D.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Ray, D.K.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 2012, 490, 254–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gentil, E.C.; Gallo, D.; Christensen, T.H. Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2371–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tukker, A.; Goldbohm, R.A.; De Koning, A.; Verheijden, M.; Kleijn, R.; Wolf, O.; Pérez-Domínguez, I.; Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1776–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sala, S.; Farioli, F.; Zamagni, A. Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1686–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjørn, A.; Hauschild, M.Z. Introducing carrying capacity–based normalisation in LCA: Framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1005–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bjørn, A.; Diamond, M.; Owsianiak, M.; Verzat, B.; Hauschild, M.Z. Strengthening the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to support development within planetary boundaries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 6370–6371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bjørn, A.; Margni, M.; Roy, P.O.; Bulle, C.; Hauschild, M.Z. A proposal to measure absolute environmental sustainability in life cycle assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 63, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Indicator | Indicator Definition | Approach Followed to Remunerate Equity | Approach Followed to Remunerate Unpaid Family Labour Force |
---|---|---|---|
Work income per family work unit (full-time equivalent) (in Swiss francs) | Income available per full-time equivalent family work unit after deduction of all external factor costs and after remuneration of equity capital at its opportunity cost | Opportunity cost: interest rate on a 10-year Swiss government bond | Residual value: income left for the remuneration of the unpaid family labour force after deduction of the external factor costs and after remuneration of equity to its opportunity cost |
Return on equity (in %) | The income that remains available for the remuneration of equity capital as a percentage of equity capital, after deduction of all external factor costs and after remuneration of the unpaid family labour force at its opportunity cost | Residual value: income left for the remuneration of equity after deduction of the external factor costs and after remuneration of the unpaid family labour force to its opportunity cost | Opportunity cost: median salary of the employees of the secondary and tertiary sector of the Swiss economy |
Output/input ratio (in %) | The ratio between the farm outputs (gross profit) and all farm inputs, i.e., external factor costs as well as the costs for the own production factors (equity and unpaid family labour) remunerated at their respective opportunity costs | Opportunity cost: interest rate on a 10-year Swiss government bond | Opportunity cost: median salary of the employees of the secondary and tertiary sector of the Swiss economy |
Farm Global Environmental Performance: Eco-Efficiency (MJ Digestible Energy for Humans/On- and Off-Farm Environmental Impact) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demand for Non-Renewable Energy | Ozone Depletion | P-Resource Demand | K-Resource Demand | Deforestation | Global Warming Potential | Land Competition | Human Toxicity | ||
Farm Local Environmental Performance (ha Farm Usable Agricultural Area/On-Farm Environmental Impact) | Human toxicity | +0.25 * | n.s. | +0.36 ** | +0.39 ** | +0.24 * | n.s. | n.s. | +0.60 *** |
Aquatic Ecotoxicity | −0.39 ** | −0.31 * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | −0.45 *** | −0.40 ** | −0.28 * | |
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity | −0.26 * | n.s. | n.s. | +0.27 * | n.s. | −0.39 ** | −0.42 ** | n.s. | |
Ozone Formation | −0.26 * | −0.25 * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | −0.25 * | −0.40 ** | −0.28 * | |
Acidification | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | −0.25 * | n.s. | |
Eutrophication Terrestrial | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | −0.25 * | n.s. | |
Eutrophication Aquatic N | −0.39 ** | −0.31 * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | −0.39 ** | −0.36 ** | −0.30 * | |
Eutrophication Aquatic P | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | +0.23 * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
Water Deprivation | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
Farm Global Environmental Performance: Eco-Efficiency (MJ Digestible Energy for Humans/On- and Off-Farm Environmental Impact) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aquatic Ecotoxicity | Terrestrial Ecotoxicity | Ozone Formation | Acidification | Eutrophication Terrestrial | Eutrophication Aquatic N | Eutrophication Aquatic P | Water Deprivation | ||
Farm Local Environmental Performance (ha Farm Usable Agricultural Area/On-Farm Environmental Impact) | Human toxicity | n.s. | +0.30 * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | +0.27 * |
Aquatic Ecotoxicity | +0.34 * | +0.32 * | −0.49 *** | −0.46 *** | −0.46 *** | n.s. | n.s. | −0.50 *** | |
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity | +0.30 * | +0.47 *** | −0.42 ** | −0.44 *** | −0.44 *** | n.s. | −0.31 * | −0.37 ** | |
Ozone Formation | n.s. | n.s. | −0.26 * | n.s. | n.s. | −0.23 * | −0.30 * | −0.24 * | |
Acidification | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
Eutrophication Terrestrial | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
Eutrophication Aquatic N | n.s. | n.s. | −0.38 ** | −0.40 ** | −0.39 ** | n.s. | −0.23 * | −0.39 ** | |
Eutrophication Aquatic P | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | +0.24 * | n.s. | +0.49 *** | n.s. | |
Water Deprivation | n.s. | n.s. | −0.24 * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
Farm Global Environmental Performance: Eco-Efficiency (MJ Digestible Energy for Humans/On- and Off-Farm Environmental Impact) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demand for Non-Renewable Energy | Ozone Depletion | P-Resource Demand | K-Resource Demand | Deforestation | Global Warming Potential | Land Competition | Human Toxicity | ||
Farm Economic Performance | Work Income Per Family Work Unit | +0.24 * | +0.26 * | +0.31 * | +0.35 ** | +0.40 ** | +0.33 * | +0.37 ** | +0.40 ** |
Return on Equity | +0.24 * | +0.32 * | +0.38 ** | +0.41 ** | +0.54 *** | +0.30 * | +0.31 * | +0.25 * | |
Output/Input Ratio | + 0.28 * | +0.30 * | +0.34 * | +0.37 ** | +0.42 ** | +0.39 ** | +0.38 ** | +0.43 ** |
Farm Global Environmental Performance: Eco-Efficiency (MJ Digestible Energy for Humans/On- and Off-Farm Environmental Impact) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aquatic Ecotoxicity | Terrestrial Ecotoxicity | Ozone Formation | Acidification | Eutrophication Terrestrial | Eutrophication Aquatic N | Eutrophication Aquatic P | Water Deprivation | ||
Farm Economic Performance | Work Income Per Family Work Unit | +0.30 * | n.s. | +0.37 ** | +0.39 ** | +0.41 ** | +0.29 * | +0.45 *** | +0.49 *** |
Return on Equity | +0.43 *** | +0.27 * | +0.31 * | +0.28 * | +0.28 * | +0.41 ** | +0.30 * | +0.34 ** | |
Output/Input Ratio | +0.30 * | n.s. | + 0.41 ** | +0.47 *** | +0.48 *** | + 0.26 * | +0.44 *** | +0.54 *** |
Farm Local Environmental Performance (ha Farm Usable Agricultural Area/On-Farm Environmental Impact) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Human Toxicity | Aquatic Ecotoxicity | Terrestrial Ecotoxicity | Ozone Formation | Acidification | Eutrophication Terrestrial | Eutrophication Aquatic N | Eutrophication Aquatic P | Water Deprivation | ||
Farm Economic Performance | Work Income Per Family Work Unit | +0.26 * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | +0.28 * | n.s. |
Return on Equity | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
Output/Input Ratio | +0.24 * | −0.23 * | −0.26 * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | +0.23 * | n.s. |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Repar, N.; Jan, P.; Nemecek, T.; Dux, D.; Alig Ceesay, M.; Doluschitz, R. Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121294
Repar N, Jan P, Nemecek T, Dux D, Alig Ceesay M, Doluschitz R. Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms. Sustainability. 2016; 8(12):1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121294
Chicago/Turabian StyleRepar, Nina, Pierrick Jan, Thomas Nemecek, Dunja Dux, Martina Alig Ceesay, and Reiner Doluschitz. 2016. "Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms" Sustainability 8, no. 12: 1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121294
APA StyleRepar, N., Jan, P., Nemecek, T., Dux, D., Alig Ceesay, M., & Doluschitz, R. (2016). Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms. Sustainability, 8(12), 1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121294