The Use of Environmental Information in Decision Making

1
The Use of Environmental Information in Decision
Making

• Charlotte Lagerberg Fogelberg1
• Fredrik Fogelberg2
• 1Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
  Sweden
• 2Hedmark University College, Norway

Jurmala, May 11-14 2005
2
15 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives

• Reduced climate impact
• Clean air
• Natural acidification only
• A non-toxic environment
• A protective ozone layer
• A safe radiation environment
• Zero eutrophication
• Flourishing lakes and streams

3
15 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives

• Good-quality groundwater
• A balanced marine environment, flourishing
  coastal areas and archipelagos
• Thriving wetlands
• Sustainable forests
• A varied agricultural landscape
• A magnificent mountain landscape
• A good built environment

4
Environmental Policy of the Swedish Government
The overall aim isto hand over to the
nextgeneration a societyin which the
majorenvironmental problemshave been solved.
The Swedish Parliament (Riksdagen) 1999
5
Divided Responsibility
15 national quality objectives
interim targets for each
Central authorities
Regional authorities
regional objectives
Local authorities
local objectives
6
Political frameworks
1992 UN conference in Rio de Janeiro
Agenda 21 conventions on climate and
biodiversity

• Promote the inclusion of social aspects and
  environmental costs into the prices of goods and
  services
• Develop programmes to promote increased awareness
  in areas such as education, public information,
  consumer information, advertising and media
• Develop and introduce efficient tools for
  consumer information on issues relating to human
  health and safety
• Promote public procurement that develops and
  distributes environmentally sound goods and
  services

7
Sustainable consumption of foodstuffs, housing
and transport

• Swedish governmental investigation
• Final conclusions and suggestions by end of May
  2005

8
Some opinions of the governmental investigator

• Consider our values, attitudes and habits in
  favour of a smarter and more caring lifestyle
• Policy must be used more forcefully to
• speed up development of greener technology
• change price relations in favour of greater
  social consumption

Economic growth
Life satisfaction
9
Public procurement of foods

• Swedish Environmental Management Council
• Governmental assignment
• Public procurement is governed by law
  diskriminering) how the demands for quotation
  are expressed is essential for lawful choice
• Easy-to-use instrument for purchasing
  organisations caring about environmental issues
• All types of simple non-composed foods
• Food services
• Suggestions ready 2005, implementation 2006

10
E-info

• Designing and evaluating the impacts of
  environmental information in food service
  institutions and the food wholesale sector
• Funding from the Foundation for Strategic
  Environmental Research
• Investigate the behaviour of food purchasing
  managers in general and in particular regarding
  their use of environmental information
• Environmental profiles of foods
• Scenarios

11
Vegetables and meats

• Carrot
• Tomato
• Apple
• Beans and peas
• Broccoli
• Onion
• Chicken
• Beef

12
Parameters for the environmental profiles

• Resource use water plant nutrients chemicals
  packaging materials
• Fuel use electricity gaseous fuels diesel
  petrol
• Land use for primary production

13
Different origin
Carrot
Poland
Tomato
Onion
Beef
14
Fresh carrot
Inputs such as water, electricity, diesel, soap,
chemicals, crop protection agents, fertilizers,
lime
,
,
Washing and packing, incl all processes in the
packing house
Storage on farm or packing house
Storage at wholesaler
Handling at food service institutions
Discarded carrots
Discarded carrots
Discarded carrots
?
Animal feed
Animal feed
15
Beef, grazing system
16
Complex supply chain
Many purchasing managers involved
17
Profiles depend on method
What you see depends on how you look.
Herman Verhagen (Change 52)
18
Testing purchasers decision

• Three environmental aspects were used
• energy use
• greenhouse gas emissions
• toxic substances
• Price
• Values of env parameters 90 of mean
• Price 7 of mean
• Apples and minced meat

19
Testing purchasers decision
Product alternative B Energy use 4.9
MJ/kg Greenhouse gas emissions 1.4 kg
CO2-eqv/kg Toxic substances 3.2 g/kg Land use
33.3 m2/kg Price 34.80 SEK/kg
Product alternative A Energy use 92.3
MJ/kg Greenhouse gas emissions 26.6 kg
CO2-eqv/kg Toxic substances 0.2 g/kg Land use
33.3 m2/kg Price 40.00 SEK/kg
I prefer A and B equally
I prefer A
I prefer B
20
Testing purchasers decision again
Product alternative B Energy use 4.9 MJ/kg
() Greenhouse gas emissions 1.4 kg CO2-eqv/kg
() Toxic substances 3.2 g/kg (-) Land use 33.3
m2/kg Price 34.80 SEK/kg
Product alternative A Energy use 92.3 MJ/kg
(-) Greenhouse gas emissions 26.6 kg CO2-eqv/kg
(-) Toxic substances 0.2 g/kg () Land use 33.3
m2/kg Price 40.00 SEK/kg
I prefer A and B equally
I prefer A
I prefer B
21
Preliminary results

• Price by far dominated the preferences
• Toxic substances was the dominating
  environmental parameter
• Environmental parameters had greater impact on
  choice when labelled with and
• Different environmental parameters significant
  for different products

22
Final project seminar November 15, 2005

• Thank you for your attention!