Assessing the carbon footprint of the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry of Australia

被引:0
作者
Kazemian, Soheil [1 ]
Zaman, Rashid [1 ]
Iranmanesh, Mohammad [2 ]
Sanusi, Zuraidah Mohd [3 ]
机构
[1] Edith Cowan Univ, Sch Business & Law, Joondalup Campus, Joondalup, Australia
[2] La Trobe Univ, La Trobe Business Sch, Bundoora Campus, Melbourne, Australia
[3] Univ Teknol MARA, Accounting Res Inst, Shah Alam, Malaysia
关键词
Carbon footprint calculation; Agriculture; Forestry and fishing industry; Australia; Input-output; Lifecycle assessment; IELab; WASTE MANAGEMENT; EMISSIONS; ELECTRICITY; MITIGATION; LIVESTOCK; PRODUCTS; ENERGY; IMPACT; MODEL;
D O I
10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2023-0610
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
PurposeThis study examines the carbon emissions of Australia's agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors from a consumption perspective to develop effective policy frameworks. The objective is to identify key supply chains, industries and products contributing to these emissions and provide recommendations for sustainable development.Design/methodology/approachA multiregional input-output lifecycle assessment was conducted using the Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) platform to disaggregate sectors and enable benchmarking against other economic sectors.FindingsIn 2018, the "agriculture, forestry, and fishing" sector was responsible for 12.15% of Australia's carbon footprint. Major contributors included the "electricity, gas, water, and waste" category (26.1%) and the sector's activities (24.3%). The "transport, postal, and warehousing" sector also contributed 18.4%. Within the industry, the agriculture subsector had the highest impact (71.3%), followed by forestry and logging (15%) and fishing, hunting and trapping (7.6%). Aquaculture and supporting services contributed 6.1%.Research limitations/implicationsThe principal constraint encountered by the present study pertained to the availability of up-to-date data. The latest accessible data for quantifying the carbon footprint within Australia's agriculture, forestry and fishing sector, utilizing the Input-Output analysis methodology through the Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) platform, about 2018.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study provide policymakers with detailed insights into the carbon footprints of key sectors, highlighting the contributions from each subsector. This information can be directly used to develop effective emission-reduction policies, with a focus on reducing emissions in utility services, transport and warehousing.Social implicationsThe study, by raising public awareness of the significant role of industrial agricultural methods in Australia's carbon footprint and emphasizing the importance of renewable energy and sustainable fuels for electricity generation and road transport, underscores the urgent need for action to mitigate climate change.Originality/valueThis study stands out by not only identifying the most impactful industries but also by providing specific strategies to reduce their emissions. It offers a comprehensive breakdown of specific agricultural activities and outlines mitigation strategies for utility services, agricultural operations and transport, thereby adding a unique perspective to the existing knowledge.
引用
收藏
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Occupational Health Policy and Immigrant Workers in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Sector
    Liebman, Amy K.
    Wiggins, Melinda F.
    Fraser, Clermont
    Levin, Jeffrey
    Sidebottom, Jill
    Arcury, Thomas A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, 2013, 56 (08) : 975 - 984
  • [22] Food miles, carbon footprint and global value chains for Spanish agriculture: assessing the impact of a carbon border tax
    Lopez, Luis-Antonio
    Cadarso, Maria-Angeles
    Gomez, Nuria
    Tobarra, Maria-Angeles
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2015, 103 : 423 - 436
  • [23] Methodology for Carbon Footprint in Forestry Findings and Ways of Improvement
    Chauvet, Gabriel
    Paris, Jean-Luc
    Devise, Olivier
    Charles, Andre
    COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD, 2010, 336 : 125 - +
  • [24] Carbon footprint and economic efficiency of urban agriculture in Beijing-a comparative case study of conventional and home-delivery agriculture
    Hu, Yingjie
    Zheng, Ji
    Kong, Xiangbin
    Sun, Jin
    Li, Yu
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 234 : 615 - 625
  • [25] Climate Change and the Textile Industry: The Carbon Footprint of Dyes
    Li, Xin
    Zhu, Lisha
    Ding, Xuemei
    Wu, Xiongying
    Wang, Laili
    AATCC JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, 2024, 11 (02) : 109 - 123
  • [26] Understanding Stakeholder Dissemination Preferences for an Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Injury Surveillance System
    Hansen-Ruiz, Cristina S.
    Luschen, Kevin
    Huber, John
    Scott, Erika
    JOURNAL OF AGROMEDICINE, 2024, 29 (02) : 235 - 245
  • [27] Analysis of accommodation providers' carbon footprint in Australia: motivations and challenges
    Apolloni, Massimiliano
    Volgger, Michael
    Pforr, Christof
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, 2024, 36 (05) : 1490 - 1511
  • [28] Working hours, sleep, and fatigue in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector: A scoping review
    Elliott, K. C.
    Lincoln, Jennifer M.
    Flynn, Michael A.
    Levin, Jeffrey L.
    Smidt, Mathew
    Dzugan, Jerry
    Ramos, Athena K.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, 2022, 65 (11) : 898 - 912
  • [29] Carbon emissions in China's steel industry from a life cycle perspective: Carbon footprint insights
    Song, Xiaocong
    Du, Shuai
    Deng, Chenning
    Shen, Peng
    Xie, Minghui
    Zhao, Ci
    Chen, Chen
    Liu, Xiaoyu
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, 2025, 148 : 650 - 664
  • [30] The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America
    Teague, W. R.
    Apfelbaum, S.
    Lal, R.
    Kreuter, U. P.
    Rowntree, J.
    Davies, C. A.
    Conser, R.
    Rasmussen, M.
    Hatfield, J.
    Wang, T.
    Wang, F.
    Byck, P.
    JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION, 2016, 71 (02) : 156 - 164