1 Introduction
1.1 Sustainability in the public restoration
1.2 Aims of the article
2 Method applied to test and rank the GPP options
2.1 Environmental assessment of collective restoration
2.2 Description of the research method
-
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing nations, governments, businesses, and citizens and will influence the way we live and work in future decades (IPCC 2007). Climate change is subject to the continuous attention of and monitoring by policy makers at every level, with industries and citizens being highly sensitive to these issues (Ostrom 2009).
-
Climate change reduction efforts have been agreed globally, and specific targets have been enshrined in international treaties, such as the Kyoto protocols (UNFCCC 1997), and translated into national legislation (e.g. the national law no. 120 of 2002 in Italy). These international agreements also affect local authorities. The achievement of national targets is based on specific planning and actions undertaken at the local level.
-
The global warming potential (GWP), used to assess climate change, is recognised by the scientific community, and in particular by LCA experts, as one of the most robust environmental indicators currently available (JRC 2010). The GWP incorporates all the GHGs, weighted according to their global warming potential and expressed as an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO2eq). For this reason, the calculation of GWP is generally referred to as carbon footprinting (CF).
3 The baseline emission scenario for the school catering service in Turin
3.1 Description of the school catering service and definition of the baseline scenario
Food item | Average quantity in standard portions | Unit | Frequency in the average meal | Quantity in the average meal | Unit |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pasta | 70 | g | 0.6 | 42 | g |
Rice | 70 | g | 0.25 | 17.5 | g |
Soup | 35 | g (of pasta/rice) | 0.15 | 5.25 | g (of pasta/rice) |
Sauce | 80 | g | 0.9 | 72 | g |
Tuna | 80 | g | 0.1 | 8 | g |
Other fish | 140 | g | 0.1 | 14 | g |
Egg/omelette | 110 | g (of omelette) | 0.1 | 11 | g (of omelette) |
Cheese | 80 | g | 0.1 | 8 | g |
Mozzarella cheese | 90 | g | 0.1 | 9 | g |
Beef | 90 | g | 0.15 | 13.5 | g |
Pork | 90 | g | 0.15 | 13.5 | g |
Turkey | 100 | g | 0.1 | 10 | g |
Other poultry | 100 | g | 0.1 | 10 | g |
Cooked vegetables | 150 | g | 0.7 | 105 | g |
Fresh vegetables | 50 | g | 0.3 | 15 | g |
Fruit | 140 | g | 0.55 | 77 | g |
Yogurt | 125 | g | 0.35 | 43.75 | g |
Fruit juice | 200 | ml | 0.05 | 10 | ml |
Dessert | 100 | g | 0.05 | 5 | g |
Bread | 60 | g | 1 | 60 | g |
3.2 CF of the baseline scenario
3.3 Sensitivity analysis
Food Item | kgCO2eq/kg | St.dev | gCO2eq/portion |
---|---|---|---|
Pasta | 1.05 | 0.16 | 73 |
Rice | 1.34 | 0.23 | 94 |
Soup | 2.26 | 0.36 | 79 |
Sauce | 0.59 | 0.07 | 47 |
Tuna | 13.58 | na | 1086 |
Other fish | 3.12 | na | 436 |
Egg/omelette | 1.78 | 0.17 | 196 |
Cheese | 12.64 | 1.39 | 1011 |
Mozzarella cheese | 10.04 | 0.90 | 904 |
Beef | 19.47 | 2.15 | 1752 |
Pork | 15.89 | 2.04 | 1430 |
Poultry | 5.19 | 0.70 | 519 |
Cooked vegetables | 0.79 | 0.17 | 118 |
Fresh vegetables | 1.91 | 0.43 | 95 |
Fruit | 0.14 | 0.03 | 19 |
Yogurt | 0.18 | 0.04 | 22 |
Fruit juice | 0.51 | 0.10 | 102 |
Dessert | 2.12 | 0.50 | 212 |
Bread | 1.37 | 0.13 | 82 |
4 Reducing the CF using different GPP policies
4.1 Potential GPP policies in the school catering service
Module affected by the GPP policy | Considered in the study | Not considered in the study (reason) |
---|---|---|
Module 1 Food production | - Different production practices for food - Change food component in the diet | - Organic aquaculture (very limited data available for Italy or Europe) - Animal welfare and fair trade products (although often considered as GPP policies, the authors consider these aspects as ethical issues and out of scope for this analysis) |
Module 2 Food logistics | - Local provisioning of food - Improvements in local distribution of food | - Buy in-season fruits and vegetables (this approach had already take place in the baseline scenario of the case study) - Eco driving course for drivers (no study available for CF reduction due to driving style) - Increasing the number of vehicles fuelled by natural gas (it has been proven to increase the CF even if it lowers other impact categories such as air quality) (Cerutti et al. 2016). |
Module 3 Cooking, storage, and serving | - Adoption of energy efficient appliances - Electricity from photovoltaic panels - Certified electricity exclusively from renewable sources | - Perform an energy efficiency analysis of the facilities (no consistent data on average savings that can be obtained) - Use of products with Ecolabel (no data available on the CF reduction for such products) |
Module 4 Waste management | - Washable tableware - Tableware in Mater-Bi® - Tap water - Optimisation of recycling inorganic waste - Optimisation of composting organic waste | - Purchase of food with less packaging (inconsistent data available in LCA studies with less primary and secondary packaging per food item) |
4.2 Module 1: food production
Standard menu | No meat menu | No meat, no fish menu | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gCO2eq | % reduction | gCO2eq | % reduction | gCO2eq | % reduction | ||
Conventional | Pasta/rice/bread | 129.68 | – | 129.68 |
0%
| 129.68 |
0%
|
Main courses | 1026.72 | – | 693.35 | −32%
| 468.80 | −54%
| |
Vegetables | 112.20 | – | 112.20 |
0%
| 134.64 | −20%
| |
Fruit/dessert | 24.57 | – | 24.57 |
0%
| 24.57 |
0%
| |
Module 1—subtotal | 1293.17 | – | 959.80 | −26%
| 757.69 | −41%
| |
Scenario—total | 1666.26 | – | 1332.88 | −20%
| 1130.77 | −32%
| |
50% organic | Pasta/rice/bread | 116.71 | −10%
| 116.71 | −10%
| 116.71 | −10%
|
Main courses | 981.04 | −4%
| 670.82 | −35%
| 438.33 | −57%
| |
Vegetables | 80.22 | −29%
| 80.22 | −29%
| 96.27 | −14%
| |
Fruit/dessert | 20.27 | −18%
| 20.27 | −18%
| 20.27 | −18%
| |
Module 1—subtotal | 1198.24 | −7%
| 888.02 | −31%
| 671.58 | −48%
| |
Scenario—total | 1571.32 | −6%
| 1261.10 | −24%
| 1044.66 | −37%
| |
100% organic | Pasta/rice/bread | 103.75 | −20%
| 103.74 | −20%
| 103.74 | −20%
|
Main courses | 935.35 | −9%
| 648.28 | −37%
| 407.85 | −60%
| |
Vegetables | 48.25 | −57%
| 48.24 | −57%
| 57.89 | −48%
| |
Fruit/dessert | 15.97 | −35%
| 15.96 | −35%
| 15.96 | −35%
| |
Module 1—subtotal | 1103.31 | −15%
| 816.24 | −37%
| 585.46 | −55%
| |
Scenario—total | 1476.39 | −11%
| 1189.33 | −29%
| 958.55 | −42%
|
4.3 Module 2: food logistics
4.4 Module 3: cooking, storage, and service
4.5 Module 4: waste management
Baseline scenario | Mater-Bi® tableware | Washable tableware (I) with dedicated transport | Washable tableware (II) without dedicated transport | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gCO2eq | gCO2eq | % reduction | gCO2eq | % reduction | gCO2eq | % reduction | |
Module 2 | 57.30 | 57.30 | – | 78.17 | +36.42% | 57.30 | – |
Module 3 | 133.17 | 133.17 | – | 150.35 | +12.90% | 150.35 | +12.90% |
Waste from tableware | 63.08 | 48.35 | −23.34% | 12.99 | −79.40% | 12.99 | −79.40% |
Other waste | 119.53 | 119.53 | – | 119.53 | – | 119.53 | – |
Module 4 subtotal | 182.61 | 167.89 | −8.06% | 132.53 | −27.43% | 132.53 | −27.43% |
Scenario—total | 1666.26 | 1651.53 | −0.88% | 1654.23 | −0.72% | 1633.36 | −1.97% |
Organic composting 0% (baseline scenario) | Organic composting 40% | Organic composting 80% | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gCO2eq | % reduction | gCO2eq | % reduction | gCO2eq | % reduction | ||
Inorganic recycling 0% (baseline scenario) | Waste not recyclable | 63.08 | – | 63.08 | – | 63.08 | – |
Organic waste | 56.35 | – | 28.17 | −50.00% | 5.63 | −90.00% | |
Inorganic waste | 63.19 | – | 63.19 | 0.00% | 63.19 | 0.00% | |
Module 4—subtotal | 182.61 | – | 154.44 | −15.43% | 131.90 | −27.77% | |
Scenario total | 1666.26 | – | 1638.08 | −1.69% | 1615.55 | −3.04% | |
Inorganic recycling 40% | Waste not recyclable | 63.08 | – | 63.08 | – | 63.08 | – |
Organic waste | 56.35 | 0.00% | 28.17 | −50.00% | 5.63 | −90.00% | |
Inorganic waste | 37.91 | −40.00% | 37.91 | −40.00% | 37.91 | −40.00% | |
Module 4—subtotal | 157.34 | −13.84% | 129.16 | −29.27% | 106.63 | −41.61% | |
Scenario total | 1640.98 | −1.52% | 1612.81 | −3.21% | 1590.27 | −4.56% | |
Inorganic recycling 80% | Waste not recyclable | 63.08 | – | 63.08 | – | 63.08 | – |
Organic waste | 56.35 | 0.00% | 28.17 | −50.00% | 5.63 | −90.00% | |
Inorganic waste | 12.64 | −80.00% | 12.64 | −80.00% | 12.64 | −80.00% | |
Module 4—subtotal | 132.06 | −27.68% | 103.89 | −43.11% | 81.35 | −55.45% | |
Scenario total | 1615.71 | −3.03% | 1587.53 | −4.72% | 1565.00 | −6.08% |
5 Discussion
Module | GPP policy | Absolute reduction per meal (gCO2
1eq) | Relative reduction in the module (% reduction) | Relative reduction in the full service (% reduction) | Difficulties in the application of the GPP policy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Module 1 Food production | Different production practices for food | −189.87 | −15% | −11.39% | Medium (difficulties related to the certification schemes) |
Change food component in the diet | −535.48 | −41% | −32.14% | High (difficulties related to social, economic and nutritional issues) | |
Module 2 Food transport | Local provisioning of food | −3.35 | −6% | −0.20% | Medium (difficulties in providing enough local food of the requested quality) |
Improvements in local distribution of food | −12.26 | −16% | −0.74% | High (difficulties in the urban dimensions and need for facilities) | |
Module 3 Cooking, storage, and serving | Adoption of energy efficient appliances | −31.34 | −24% | −1.88% | Medium (difficulties related to the labelling of professional appliances) |
Electricity from photovoltaic panels | −80.21 | −60% | −4.81% | High (difficulties related to economic and logistic issues) | |
Certified electricity exclusively from renewable sources | −100.32 | −75% | −6.02% | Medium (difficulties related to economic issues) | |
Module 4 Waste management | Washable tableware | −50 (+17 in M3) | −27% (+12% in M3) | −1.97% | Medium (difficulties related to costs and to the creation of facilities for cleaning) |
Mater-Bi® tableware | −15 | −8% | −0.88% | Low (no significant difficulties revealed) | |
Tap water | −41 (+2 in M3) | −22% (+1% in M3) | −2.34% | Low (no significant difficulties revealed) | |
Optimisation (80%) of the recycling of inorganic waste | −50 | −28% | −3.03% | Low (difficulties can be overcome by the training of operators) | |
Optimisation (90%) of the composting of organic waste | −50 | −27% | −3.04% | Low (difficulties can be overcome by the training of operators) |