Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hohpublica.uni-hohenheim.de/handle/123456789/16

Browse

Browsing Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre by Classification "330"

Type the first few letters and click on the Browse button
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Household food waste quantification and cross-examining the official figures: A study on household wheat bread waste in Shiraz, Iran
    (2022) Ghaziani, Shahin; Ghodsi, Delaram; Schweikert, Karsten; Dehbozorgi, Gholamreza; Faghih, Shiva; Mohabati, Shabnam; Doluschitz, Reiner
    The global consumer food waste (FW) estimates are mainly based on modeling data obtained from governments. However, a major data gap exists in FW at the household level, especially in developing countries. Meanwhile, the reliability of the existing data is questionable. This study aimed to quantify wheat bread waste (HBW) in Shiraz, Iran, and cross-examine the governmental HBW data. Face-to-face waste recall questionnaire interviews were conducted in 419 households from December 2018 to August 2019. A multistage sampling strategy consisting of stratification, clustering, and systematic sampling was employed. Moreover, we carried out a comprehensive document review to extract and analyze the official HBW data. The results revealed that the HBW in Shiraz is 1.80%—the waste amounts for traditional bread and non-traditional bread were 1.70% and 2.50%, respectively. The survey results were compared with the previous official data, revealing a substantial contradiction with the 30% HBW reported between 1991 and 2015. Possible reasons for this disparity are explored in this paper. Although our results cannot be generalized to other food commodities and locations, our findings suggest that considering the substantial likelihood of bias in the official data, policymakers should conduct more FW measurements and re-evaluate the accuracy of the existing data.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Valorization for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the agri-food value chain
    (2023) Voglhuber-Slavinsky, Ariane; Lemke, Nahleen; MacPherson, Joseph; Dönitz, Ewa; Olbrisch, Mathias; Schöbel, Philipp; Moller, Björn; Bahrs, Enno; Helming, Katharina; Voglhuber-Slavinsky, Ariane; Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany; Lemke, Nahleen; Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany; MacPherson, Joseph; Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany; Dönitz, Ewa; Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Competence Center Foresight, Karlsruhe, Germany; Olbrisch, Mathias; Chair of Public Law, Administrative, European, Environmental, Agricultural and Food Law, Prof. Dr. Ines Härtel, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) | Research Center for Digital Law, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany; Schöbel, Philipp; Chair of Public Law, Administrative, European, Environmental, Agricultural and Food Law, Prof. Dr. Ines Härtel, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) | Research Center for Digital Law, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany; Moller, Björn; Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Competence Center Foresight, Karlsruhe, Germany; Bahrs, Enno; Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany; Helming, Katharina; Faculty of Landscape Management and Nature Conservation, University for Sustainable Development (HNEE), Eberswalde, Germany
    This article defines the term valorization of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) measures, as distinguished from their valuation, and underpins it with an assessment of private valorization examples along the agri-food value chain. Valorization incentivizes measures for promoting BES, while valuation refers to its quantification. Valuation can be a step of valorization but is not indispensable. In scientific literature, the terms valorization and valuation are often used interchangeably. In addition, there is a lack of research on private options versus conventional, public policy options. Therefore, we searched for private valorization options primarily in public sources (gray literature and websites). This led to the identification of four clusters (markets for voluntary services, labeling, and certification, environmental management/CSR, and tradable permits and quotas). Based on these clusters the options were assessed from a legal and systems dynamics perspective. In addition, the viability of selected valorization options in different future scenarios was examined. The analysis revealed a wide range of private valorization options, which in contrast to public policy options that focus almost entirely on the production stage, are spread across the agri-food value chain. Their suitability differs under different future scenarios, legal and systems conditions.