Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer — The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices

The aim of this article is to draw attention to calculations on the environmental effects of agriculture and to the definition of marginal agricultural yield. When calculating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities, the real environmental load generated by agriculture is not revealed properly through ecological footprint indicators, as the type of agricultural farming (thus the nature of the pollution it creates) is not incorporated in the calculation. It is commonly known that extensive farming uses relatively small amounts of labor and capital. It produces a lower yield per unit of land and thus requires more land than intensive farming practices to produce similar yields, so it has a larger crop and grazing footprint. However, intensive farms, to achieve higher yields, apply fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, etc., and cultivation and harvesting are often mechanized. In this study, the focus is on highlighting the differences in the environmental impacts of extensive and intensive farming practices through a statistical analysis of the factors determining agricultural yield. A marginal function is constructed for the relation between chemical fertilizer use and yield per unit fertilizer input. Furthermore, a proposal is presented for how calculation of the yield factor could possibly be improved. The yield factor used in the calculation of biocapacity is not the marginal yield for a given area, but is calculated from the real and actual yields, and this way biocapacity and the ecological footprint for cropland are equivalent. Calculations for cropland biocapacity do not show the area needed for sustainable production, but rather the actual land area used for agricultural production. The proposal the authors present is a modification of the yield factor and also the changed biocapacity is calculated. The results of statistical analyses reveal the need for a clarification of the methodology for calculating marginal yield, which could clearly contribute to assessing the real environmental impacts of agriculture.

Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer — The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices

The aim of this article is to draw attention to calculations on the environmental effects of agriculture and to the definition of marginal agricultural yield. When calculating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities, the real environmental load generated by agriculture is not revealed properly through ecological footprint indicators, as the type of agricultural farming (thus the nature of the pollution it creates) is not incorporated in the calculation. It is commonly known that extensive farming uses relatively small amounts of labor and capital. It produces a lower yield per unit of land and thus requires more land than intensive farming practices to produce similar yields, so it has a larger crop and grazing footprint. However, intensive farms, to achieve higher yields, apply fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, etc., and cultivation and harvesting are often mechanized. In this study, the focus is on highlighting the differences in the environmental impacts of extensive and intensive farming practices through a statistical analysis of the factors determining agricultural yield. A marginal function is constructed for the relation between chemical fertilizer use and yield per unit fertilizer input. Furthermore, a proposal is presented for how calculation of the yield factor could possibly be improved. The yield factor used in the calculation of biocapacity is not the marginal yield for a given area, but is calculated from the real and actual yields, and this way biocapacity and the ecological footprint for cropland are equivalent. Calculations for cropland biocapacity do not show the area needed for sustainable production, but rather the actual land area used for agricultural production. The proposal the authors present is a modification of the yield factor and also the changed biocapacity is calculated. The results of statistical analyses reveal the need for a clarification of the methodology for calculating marginal yield, which could clearly contribute to assessing the real environmental impacts of agriculture.

Az élelmiszer-fogyasztás szerkezete és környezeti hatása Magyarországon (Analysing the structure and environmental impact of food consumption in hungary)

Egyre többen ismerik fel, hogy az élelmiszer-fogyasztás egészségügyi és környezeti hatása is jelentős. A különböző életstílusú társadalmi csoportok fogyasztási szerkezete eltérő lehet. Jelen tanulmány ezerfős, országos reprezentatív minta alapján vizsgálja az élelmiszer-fogyasztási szerkezet eltéréseit a nemek és különböző iskolázottságú fogyasztók körében. Jellemző fogyasztási klasztereket tár fel a fogyasztás szerkezete alapján. A fogyasztás szerkezeti és mennyiségi értékein túlmenően az ökológiai lábnyom indikátorával a fogyasztás környezetterhelését is számszerűsíti. _____ Concern about both health and environmental impacts of food consumption is increasing. Social groups with various lifestyles can have different food consumption structure. The present study analyses the differences in the food consumption structure among genders and educational groups based on a national, representative survey of 1000 adults. Food consumption clusters are identified based on food consumption structure. Beyond the analysis of food consumption and its structure, its environmental impact is quantified by the ecological footprint indicator.

The calculation of dynamic ecological footprint on the basis of the dynamic input-output model

The Leontief input-output model is widely used to determine the ecological footprint of consumption in a region or a country. It is able to capture spillover environmental effects along the supply change, thus its popularity is increasing in ecology related economic research. These studies are static and the dynamic investigations are neglected. The dynamic Leontief model makes it possible to involve the capital and inventory investment in the footprint calculation that projects future growth of GDP and environmental impacts. We show a new calculation method to determine the effect of capital accumulation on ecological footprint. Keywords: Dynamic Leontief model, Dynamic ecological footprint, Environmental management, Allocation method

Carbon emissions locked - in trade

In recent years there has been a growing concern about the emission trade balance of countries. It is due to the fact that countries with an open economy are active players in the international trade, though trade is not only a major factor in forging a country’s economic structure anymore, but it does contribute to the movement of embodied emissions beyond the country borders. This issue is especially relevant from the carbon accounting policy’s point of view, as it is known that the production-based principle is in effect now in the Kyoto agreement. The study aims at revealing the interdependence of countries on international trade and its environmental impacts, and how the carbon accounting method plays a crucial role in evaluating a country’s environmental performance and its role in the climate mitigation processes. The input-output models are used in the methodology, as they provide an appropriate framework for this kind of environmental accounting; the analysis shows an international comparison of four European countries (Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Hungary) with extended trading activities and carbon emissions. Moving from the production-based approach in the climate policy, to the consumptionperspective principle and allocation [15], it would also help increasing the efficiency of emission reduction targets and the evaluation of the sustainability dimension and its impacts of international trade. The results of the study have shown that there is an importance of distinction between the two emission allocation approaches, both from global and local level point of view.

One More Awareness Gap? The Behaviour–Impact Gap Problem

Preceding research has made hardly any attempt to measure the ecological impacts of pro-environmental behaviour in an objective way. Those impacts were rather supposed or calculated. The research described herein scrutinized the ecological impact reductions achieved through pro-environmental behaviour and raised the question how much of a reduction in carbon footprint can be achieved through voluntary action without actually affecting the socio-economic determinants of life. A survey was carried out in order to measure the difference between the ecological footprint of “green” and “brown” consumers. No significant difference was found between the ecological footprints of the two groups—suggesting that individual pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour do not always reduce the environmental impacts of consumption. This finding resulted in the formulation of a new proposition called the BIG (behaviour–impact gap) problem, which is an interesting addition to research in the field of environmental awareness gaps.