Climate impact reduction potential of agroecology: a case study of traditional Andalusian recipes (Spain)

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems on 2024, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2023.2300656.” 1 Climate impact reduction potential of agroecology: A case study of traditional Andalusian recipes (Spain) Marta Soler-Montiel1, María Montero2, Damián Copena3 and David Pérez-Neira4 1 Universidad de Sevilla (Spain), [email protected] 2 Universidade de Vigo (Spain), [email protected] 3 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (Spain), [email protected] 4 Universidad de León (Spain), [email protected] * Correspondence: Universidad de Sevilla, [email protected], Department of Applied Economics II, Faculty of Economics and Business, Av. de Ramón y Cajal, 1, 41018 Sevilla (Spain) To cite this article: Soler-Montiel, M., Montero, M., Copena, D., & Pérez-Neira, D. (2024). Climate impact reduction potential of agroecology: a case study of traditional Andalusian recipes (Spain). Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 48(4), 560–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2023.2300656 Abstract Scaling up agroecology through the implementation of local (Scenario 1, S1), seasonal (S2), organic (S3), and efficiently cooked (S4) diets based on local gastronomy can play an important role in reducing the climate and energy impacts of food. The carbon and energy footprints (CF and EF) of ten conventionally cooked traditional recipes representative of the Mediterranean diet (S0 = food from industrial and globalized agriculture, non-seasonally consumed) were estimated. The CF of the recipes was estimated to be between 0.56 and 13.4 kg CO2 eq/kg. Our results show that, depending on the drivers or scenarios (S1, S2, S3, S4) and the recipes, significant reductions in CF and EF are indeed achieved, which can be of up to 57% in CF when considering the reduction potential of these four drivers in an agroecological transition process (S5). Keywords: Good health and well-being; Sustainable cities and communities; Responsible consumption and production; Climate action; Carbon footprint 2 1. Introduction Food sustainability is an issue that involves the entire agrifood system, from farm to fork, and even before and beyond, when agricultural inputs and waste are considered (SEPEA, 2019; Infante-Amate et al., 2018). In the current context of global interconnectedness, it has become clear that on-farm change is conditioned by transformations in the other steps of the food supply chain (McMichael, 2021). Specifically, the redesign of agroecosystems according to on-farm ecological criteria, as proposed by agroecology, is only possible when coupled with changes in the processes of transformation, distribution and consumption of food based on social and environmental justice principles (Gliessman, 2015, 2019; Méndez et al., 2013). Consequently, the object of analysis and the scope of the agroecological proposals have been expanded to comprise the whole value chain and move towards new sustainable local agrifood systems (Gliessman, 2016, 2018). Healthy, culturally adapted and low-environmental-impact diets are a strategic element in those systems (Willett et al., 2019), as only a food consumption model rooted in local agroecological productions can consolidate on-farm transitions and drive the scaling up of agroecology (IPES Food, 2017; Titonell et al., 2016). Diet has been widely studied from a health perspective, but its environmental impacts have only recently begun to be analyzed (Batlle-Bayer et al., 2020; Esteve-Llorens et al., 2019; Conrad et al., 2018; González-García et al., 2018). The recognized centrality of dietary environmental impacts in global agrifood chains goes hand in hand with its relevance in the transition towards sustainable agrifood chains (IPCC, 2022; Willett et al., 2019). However, studies on dietary sustainability often forget that diets are not a disjointed sum of ingredients, but are concretized in recipes elaborated in the kitchens of homes, restaurants and other public or collective spaces (Cambeses-Franco, 2023; Simón et al., 2022). Therefore, despite the homogenizing tendencies of the globalization process, local gastronomies and the work in kitchens continue to be determinant in the configuration of current diets. They have even increased their influence on food consumption patterns as a result of the expansion of gastronomic tourism; this is the case of Andalusia and the Mediterranean diet (Medina et al., 2020). In this context, the study of the environmental impact of diet should be based on the analysis of popular recipes of the local cuisine, without forgetting the role played by kitchens, where the work is still mostly performed by women (Trevilla Espinal et al., 2021; Allen and Sachs, 2007). This is a particularly relevant aspect of agroecology, given the connection between the viability of the ecological transformation of on-farm agroecosystems and the socio-economic organization of the agents involved in the agrifood chain. In this sense, and incorporating an agroecological approach, it is possible to identify at least four main questions that determine agrifood (un)sustainability and are answered with each choice of recipes that make up the diet: “what” and “when” do we eat?, “where” and “how” what we eat is 3 produced?. These questions allow us to identify the main drivers of change towards food sustainability. Food is materialized in everyday life by first answering the question “what do we eat?”, which implies a decision about the combination of ingredients in our diet in the form of a recipe. In answering “what do we eat?”, we should not forget that changes in domestic groups and the growing individualization of society, which implies cooking in smaller quantities, are reflected in a loss of energy efficiency in kitchens. In fact, some studies indicate that cooking food can become a highly influential phase in terms of carbon footprint (CF) (Corrado et al., 2019; Bandekar et al., 2022; Üçtug et al., 2021). “When do we eat?” is the second question, which highlights the increasing fragmentation of the diet in terms of seasonality. Consuming food out of season, indeed throughout the whole year, implies a higher consumption of energy and materials in the production phase—thus, for instance, the greenhouses used to grow horticultural crops (Pérez-Neira et al., 2018)—, as well as in food preservation—see the cold chain in deep-sea fishing—, packaging and processing (Infante-Amate et al., 2018). Therefore, adapting the diet to the seasons helps avoid important environmental costs, including those of transportation (Hospido et al., 2009). This is also linked to the third question: “where is our food produced?”. Mass procurement in global agrifood chains is based on the growing export-oriented production specialization of the territories, which are increasingly dependent on food imports, thus increasing food miles and the impacts associated with transportation (Pérez-Neira et al., 2016; Coelho et al., 2018; Coley et al., 2009). Recent studies on the environmental impact of food show that the production stage has the largest impact in terms of emissions, especially in the case of animal products (Batlle-Bayer et al., 2019, 2020; Esteve-Llorens et al., 2019; Morales-Jerrett et al., 2020). The extended use of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, machinery or irrigation makes production highly dependent on non-renewable resources, which leads to high energy consumption and contribution to climate change (Smith et al., 2015). Organic agriculture, especially agroecological agriculture, is a production alternative to the dominant model, as demonstrated in the literature. For example, Smith et al. (2015) show that the organic management of agricultural systems allows a reduction in energy dependence compared with conventional management, especially when the analysis is performed per unit area. Organic agriculture uses more renewable energy, has a lower impact on ecosystems, requires more human labor to manage productive biodiversity, control weeds, etc., and improves the energy efficiency of agricultural systems (Altieri, 2002; Ciaccia et al., 2019; Timpanaro et al., 2021). Thus, the question of “how we grow” what we eat is fundamental in relation to where, when, and what we eat. The carbon and energy footprints (CF and EF) are widely used in scientific research to quantify the climate impact and energy dependence of food and diets. These indicators have attracted particular interest among consumers, businesspeople, and policymakers involved in sustainability 4 decision-making processes (Clune et al., 2017). For example, the CF and EF have been used to assess the environmental impact of different crops in various regions (Clune et al., 2017; Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016), including Andalusia (Pérez-Neira et al., 2013, 2014; Aguilera et al., 2013). They have also been employed to assess the impact of conventional and alternative diets (Batlle-Bayer et al., 2020; González-García et al., 2018; Esteve-Llorens et al., 2019), such as the vegetarian diet (Westhoek et al., 2014; Poore and Nemecek, 2018) or diets based on organic food consumption (Batlle-Bayer et al., 2019; Treu et al., 2017). Some studies have also evaluated the environmental benefits associated with the consumption of organic food, the reduction of transportation, etc. (De Laurentiis et al., 2019; Simón et al., 2022). However, only a few research works have analyzed the environmental impact associated with specific recipe menus (Schmidt- Rivera and Azapagic, 2016; Üçtug et al., 2021), especially in school canteens (Takacs et al., 2022; Peano et al., 2022). In the Spanish context, Cambeses-Franco et al. (2023) have recently calculated different environmental impacts for a large set of traditional recipes in the Galicia region. Despite this important background, to our knowledge there are no studies that evaluate the CF and EF of traditional Andalusian recipes from an agroecological perspective. Consequently, the aim of this work is to estimate the CF and EF of ten traditional Andalusian recipes, including vegetarian, vegan, meat and fish dishes, in different scenarios of change, starting from a conventional diet scenario (S0). More specifically, the associated improvement potential of traditional recipes is evaluated in a novel way using five scenarios of change: local food consumption (S1); seasonal consumption (S2); organic production (S3); efficient cooking (S4); and agroecological change (S5), where all the above transformations occur simultaneously, consolidating sustainable local food systems. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Case study The promotion of culturally adapted, healthy and low-environmental-impact diets is an indispensable requirement for the agroecological transition. In particular, the relationship between agroecology and traditional gastronomy and catering can be a feasible strategy for consumers, restaurants, hotels and local businesses to improve the sustainability of agrifood systems. This type of initiative is particularly important in places where tourism, especially gastronomic tourism, is a major attraction, as is the case of Andalusia (Medina et al., 2020). Andalusia is a region with a population of 8.48 million inhabitants located in the south of the Iberian Peninsula, which, according to official data, welcomes 20 million tourists per year (Junta de Andalucía, 2023). This figure accounts for 14% of tourism in Spain, and an annual turnover of 18,000 million euros (Hostelería de España, 2021). Tourists traveling to Andalusia stay for 8.8 days and make 5 an average expenditure of 60.9 euros per day, some of which is spent in the region’s more than 12,000 establishments (Junta de Andalucía, 2023). Andalusian gastronomy has deep roots in the Arabic cuisine of Al-Andalus and falls within the Mediterranean diet, whose basic products are vegetables, legumes, fruits, cereals, fish and olive oil with a low consumption of lipids (Willett et al., 1995). Despite the importance of Andalusian gastronomy as part of the Mediterranean diet, there is very little information on the environmental impacts associated with traditional recipes. 2.2. System boundaries, functional unit and recipe selection The carbon and energy footprints (CF and EF) are tools for assessing the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use generated by an activity, product, or sector throughout its life cycle. These quantitative indicators provide estimations of the environmental impact (measured in physical units: kg CO2-eq and MJ) of each stage of the life cycle (ISO, 2006). Following the European “farm-to-fork” strategy (EC, 2020), four stages have been defined in the life cycle of a foodstuff: a) on-farm production, b) processing and packaging, c) transportation, and d) cooking recipes for consumption. The functional unit chosen was 1 kg of traditional recipe ready to eat. To achieve the objectives of the study, ten traditional recipes of the Andalusian Mediterranean diet were selected. From the diverse gastronomic culture in Andalusia (Willett et al., 1995), different recipes were selected that were suitable for vegan (2 recipes), vegetarian (1) and omnivorous (meat and fish) (7) diets, and at the same time satisfied a criterion of popularity. In other words, these are recipes that are considered popular and traditional in Andalusia, and are offered in many hotels and restaurants that attract thousands of tourists every year. The recipes analyzed are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Selection of ten traditional recipes of the Andalusian Mediterranean diet. Recipe -Spanish (English)- Dish Differential feature and representative color (1) Gazpacho andaluz (Andalusian gazpacho) Starter Vegan (2) Patatas “a lo pobre” (Poor man’s potatoes) Starter Vegan (3) Huevos de fraile (Friar’s eggs) Starter or main course Vegetarian (4) Carrilleras (Cheek meat) Main course Meat (5) Flamenquines (Deep-fried pork, ham and cheese rolls) Main course Meat (6) Habas con jamón (Broad beans with ham) Starter Meat (7) Carne con tomate (Beef with tomato sauce) Main course Meat (8) Arroz campero (Traditional country rice) Main course Meat (9) Atún a la andaluza (Andalusian-style tuna) Main course Fish (10) Calamares a la malagueña (Malaga-style calamari) Main course Fish 6 2.3. Carbon and energy footprint calculation The specific ingredients and preparation time for each recipe analyzed are summarized in Tables A1 to A10 in Appendix A1. The recipes were assessed based on a food system that is divided into four stages, as per the aforementioned boundaries: production, packaging, transportation and cooking. The CF and EF of each recipe were estimated as the partial sum of each of the phases described above. Equation 1, shown below, was used for this purpose. In addition, an energy efficiency indicator was calculated, specifically the energy return on investment (EROI) (Eq. 2). For this purpose, the nutritional value (NV) expressed in kilocalories of each recipe was calculated based on the research of Moreiras (2005). In order to compare results between recipes, the data were homogenized according to weight (kg), i.e., the CF and EF of each recipe were divided by its mass. EIα recipe (i) = CF farm(ji) + CF packing(pji) + CF transportation(tji) + CF cooking (i) (1) EIα farm(ji) = ∑ Cj x ßj EIα packing(pji) = ∑ Pj x ßp EIα transportation(tji) = ∑ Cj x kmtj x ßt EIα cooking(i) = Ti x ßc EROI recipe(i) = Nv x EFkcal-1 (2) EIα recipe(i) = Environmental impact “α” of recipe “i”, where α = Carbon footprint (CF) or Energy footprint (EF), and i = recipe (1, 2, 3....) (Table 1); EIα farm(ji) = EIα of the production of ingredient “j” needed to make recipe “i”; EIα packing(pji) = EIα of packaging “p” (p = plastic, glass, can or paper) of ingredient “j” needed to make recipe “i”; EIα transportation(tji) = EIα of the distance traveled in transportation mode “t” (t = truck and ship) of ingredient “j” needed to elaborate recipe “i”; EIα cooking(i) = EIα associated to the time of elaboration of recipe “i”, which is mainly related to the use of cooking gas; Cj = Quantity consumed of ingredient “j”; Pj = Quantity of packaging of type “p” in ingredient “j”; Kmtj = Kilometers traveled in transportation mode “t” by ingredient “j”; Ti = Preparation time of recipe “i”; ß (j, p, t and c) = Coefficient of GHG emissions (kg CO2-eq) or energy embodied (MJ) in relation to the production of ingredient “j”, packaging “p”, transportation mode “t” and cooking time of recipe “i”; EROI = Energy return on investment of recipe “i”; Nv= Nutritional value of recipe “i” expressed in kcal; EF = Energy footprint of recipe “i” expressed in kcal (1 MJ = 238.85 kcal). First, a baseline scenario was estimated which was called “conventional” (Table 2). This baseline scenario attempts to approach the environmental impact associated with recipe development without considering any environmental improvement criteria, that is: a) all food is produced in conventional agricultural systems; b) food is non-seasonal; and c) a national/globalized 7 distribution–transportation model is implemented. This is the most common way to prepare recipes. To estimate the CF and EF, the CML-IA baseline methodology version 3.06 was used in the SimaPro software with the Ecoinvent 3.5 and Agribalyse 3.0 databases. For certain foodstuffs employed in traditional recipes, it was necessary to refer to specialized literature. For instance, for olive oil and fish, the research works of Iribarren et al. (2010), Hospido et al. (2009), Cappelletti et al. (2014), Nuutila and Kurppa (2017), Pérez-Neira and Grollmus-Venegas (2018) were consulted. Table 2. Description and scope of the “conventional” recipe-cooking scenario (S0). Scenario Description Scope Baseline (S0) a) All food is produced according to conventional agricultural/livestock-breeding/fishing methods (use of synthetic chemicals like fertilizers, pesticides, etc.; livestock raised intensively on non-organic feed; deep-sea fishing); b) Food is non-seasonal (this only applies to vegetables that are assumed to be produced in greenhouses); and c) A national/globalized distribution– transportation model is implemented. This is the most common way to prepare recipes. In general, the recipes are prepared with food from conventional agriculture/livestock breeding/fishing; no conscious criterion of proximity or seasonality is followed. Table A11 in Appendix A2 systematizes the references to SimaPro and the main bibliographic references used to calculate the CF and EF of the production, packaging and transportation of every ingredient. In the case of packaging, each plastic, glass, cardboard or paper element was weighed. In the case of packaged foods such as oil, plastic consumption was calculated at 35 g per kg. In the specific case of tuna and eggs, the consumption of aluminum cans and cartons was estimated at 30 and 3 g per kg, respectively, while for wine and vinegar, a glass bottle weight of 200 g per kg was calculated. For transportation, an average behavior was assumed based on the information available for Spain. Food dependence by type of product was calculated according to the information available in FAO (2020), and distances and modes of transportation were taken from Pérez-Neira et al. (2016). For food produced in Spain, a percentage was assigned to the origin of each ingredient, differentiating between Andalusia and the rest of Spain as per the recommendations of Simón et al. (2022). In the cooking phase, it was assumed that all the recipes, except the Andalusian gazpacho, which is a cold recipe, were prepared on natural gas stoves, following the methodology proposed by Cambeses-Franco et al. (2023). 2.4. Scenarios and sensitivity analysis From the baseline scenario, the CF and EF reduction potential of four individual drivers (local, seasonal, and organic food, and cooking efficiency) and a composite driver encompassing all of the previous ones was calculated based on Pérez-Neira et al. (2020b) and Simón et al. (2022) and resulting in the 5 scenarios described in Table 3: 8 Table 3. Description of change scenarios in relation to the baseline (conventional) scenario. Scenarios Description Scope and assumptions S1) Local food Ingredients come preferably from Andalusia and, when they are not produced in the region, they come from the main producing area in Spain. A distance of 150 km was assumed for all ingredients in the recipe, in contrast with an average of 500 km in the baseline scenario. S2) Seasonal food Food is consumed during its natural season in the region. Open-field production (no greenhouses) was assumed for horticultural products, as was fresh and not frozen fish. S3) Organic food Food is produced in organic agricultural systems, i.e. without using any synthetic chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), or through extensive livestock farming where animals consume organic feed in accordance with organic agriculture certification regulations. This was assumed for 98% to 100% of the ingredients. Some minor ingredients were not considered due to lack of information, mainly some spices used for flavor (bay leaves, fresh parsley, etc.). As there is no organic production of fish, it was assumed that this would be fresh. S4) Efficient cooking Improved efficiency in the recipe-cooking phase. Twice as much food was assumed to be cooked in the same preparation process. More collective kitchens versus individual à la carte kitchens. All ingredients in the recipes were considered. S5) Agroecological (S1 + S2 + S3 + S4) The recipes are cooked with local (S1), seasonal (S2), organic foods (S3), and cooked in a more efficient way (S4). This scenario affects all ingredients. To calculate the CF and EF of the production of seasonal and organic ingredients, we drew on specialized literature, particularly on research works focused on Andalusia and Spain. In particular, Hospido et al. (2009), Aguilera et al. (2013, 2015) and Pérez-Neira and Grollmus (2018) were used for vegetables, Vitali et al. (2018) for veal, Taylor et al. (2014) for organic and free-range eggs, Inci et al. (2016) for chicken, Iribarren et al. (2010) for inshore fish. Data on the rest of the ingredients were obtained from Pérez-Neira et al. (2013, 2014) and Aguilera et al. (2013, 2015), who analyze the environmental impact (energy and emissions) of different groups of crops and livestock in Andalusia. Additionally, we evaluated the variation (%) in the CF of the different recipes in the agroecological scenario (S5) in relation to a ±10% variation in: i) the distances traveled by locally sourced ingredients; ii) the emission factors (CO2-eq per kg of ingredient) associated with seasonal and organic production; iii) the efficiency in cooking the recipes; and iv) all three of the above factors simultaneously (i + ii + iii) (see table A15 in Appendix A3). 3. Results 3.1. Carbon and energy footprint of ten traditional recipes of the Andalusian Mediterranean diet (baseline scenario) Table 4 shows the CF, EF, NV and EROI for each of the recipes analyzed. The CF was estimated to be between 0.56 and 14.0 kg CO2-eq per kg of recipe. The vegan and cold Andalusian gazpacho (1) have the lowest impact, followed by another vegan recipe, poor man’s potatoes (2), as well as two others with low contributions of animal protein content combined with vegetables or cereals: broad beans with ham (6) and traditional country rice (8), respectively. On the other hand, two 15 the search for agroecological change linked to food sovereignty, it is necessary to work from a perspective that favors synergies between different drivers (Poore et al., 2018; Simón et al., 2022). As our results show, this opens up the possibility for significantly reducing the environmental impacts associated with traditional food and gastronomy, especially when used in agroecological transition processes to consolidate sustainable local agrifood systems (S5). 4.2. Limits and future prospects The present work has some limitations that open up future lines of work: (1) The number of recipes analyzed is limited and does not include the wide and complex cultural and gastronomic diversity of Andalusia; (2) The results of the energy efficiency of the output of kilocalories (EROI) are strongly influenced by the energy content of the ingredients that are part of the recipes and do not take into account other nutritional functions of those ingredients (proteins, vitamins, etc.). In this sense, the analysis can be improved by addressing the nutritional quality of the recipes in relation to the environmental impact (e.g., LCA-nutritional) (Green et al., 2020; Ridoutt, 2021); (3) The analysis should include the economic dimension associated with the consumption and preparation of recipes (García-Herrero et al., 2019; Simón et al., 2022); (4) The impact of the recipes should be studied using other categories, such as water use, acidification, eutrophication, etc. Focusing on one category may mask shifting loads. For example, organic farms with lower yields than conventional farms need a larger area to produce the same amount of food, and changes in land use to maintain a sustained demand can lead to loss of biodiversity and increased GHG (Huijbregts, 2010); (5) In addition, the waste treatment phase should be included (Batlle- Bayer et al., 2021), and other alternative scenarios (transportation in electric vehicles, change of packaging materials, use of electricity, green electricity, pressure cookers, etc. for cooking) should be studied (De Laurentiis et al., 2019; Martín-Arrieta et al., 2019). As observed in our data, the CF and EF results are influenced by the emission factors employed. Some studies report higher CF from organic products. However, there is consensus on the climate mitigation potential of agroecology (Smith et al., 2015; Aguilera et al., 2013, 2015). To improve estimates in this regard, carbon sequestration should also be considered. A recent study shows how an agroecological transition in the Spanish agrifood system could double the potential carbon content in the soil, especially in Mediterranean climate zones: an agroecological management, accompanied, among other measures, with a change of diet, could facilitate reaching a negative CF in net terms (-124% with respect to the current one) (Aguilera and Rivera-Ferré, 2022). 5. Final remarks This work presents the first evidence of the environmental impact (carbon and energy footprints) of traditional Andalusian cuisine and the possibilities of reducing this impact through agroecological changes, providing rigorous information ready to be used by catering services, 16 restaurants and competent authorities. Our estimations show how the elaboration of traditional recipes based on agroecological criteria—organic production (S3), seasonal (S2) and local (S1) consumption, and cooking efficiency— has a great potential to reduce their damaging effects. In this sense, a promising line of research opens up in the Andalusian context to continue furnishing scientific evidence of the positive synergies between traditional gastronomic knowledge and agroecology. These results can also be used as educational tools for diners and restaurants, or even as part of broader educational programs in schools, offering a better understanding of the repercussions of the recipes consumed on the environment. In the same vein, the work can be employed by policymakers to advance sustainability. The transformation of the agrifood system towards greater environmental and climate sustainability will involve changes and efforts at many levels, and public policies and the concrete actions of producers and consumers will improve the effectiveness of the scaling up of agroecology. Changes in the diet, in the way we understand gastronomy, and in the preparation of recipes should also be key to this process. Funding: No funding. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Aguilera, E. and Rivera-Ferré, M.G. (2022). La Urgencia de una transición agroecológica en España. Análisis de escenarios, estrategias e impactos ambientales de la transformación del sistema agroalimentario español. Amigos de la Tierra. Online: https://tierra.org/la-urgencia-de- una-transicion-agroecologica-en-espana/ (2-2-2023) Aguilera, E., Díaz-Gaona, C., García-Laureano, R., Reyes-Palomo, C., Guzmán, G., Ortolani, L., Sánchez-Rodríguez, M. and Rodríguez-Estévez, V. (2020). Agroecology for adaptation to climate change and resource depletion in the Mediterranean region. A Review. Agric. Syst., 181, 102809. Aguilera, E., Guzmán, G. and Alonso, A. (2013). Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional and organic cropping systems in Spain. I. Herbaceous crops. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 35, 713-724. Aguilera, E., Guzmán, G. and Alonso, A. (2015). Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional and organic cropping systems in Spain. II. Fruit tree orchards. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35: 725–737 Aleksandrowicz, L., Green, R., Joy, E.J., Smith, P. and Haines, A. (2016). The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS One 11(11). Allen, P. and Sachs, C. (2007). Women and food chains: The gendered politics of food. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15 (1): 1-23 17 Alonso-Domínguez, A., Callejo, J., Díaz-Méndez, C. (2020). How the type of working day affects work-life and mealtime balance: A study based on the time use survey Time & Society, vol. 29 (4) 1082-1103 Altieri, M. A. (2002) Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 1-24. Armengot, L., Beltrán-Muñoz, M. J., Schneider, M., Simón, X. and Pérez-Neira, D. (2021). Foodenergy-water nexus of different cocoa production systems from an LCA approach. J. Clean. Prod., 304, 126941. Aubry, C. and Kebir, L. (2013). Shortening food supply chains: A means for maintaining agriculture close to urban areas? The case of the French metropolitan area of Paris. Food Policy 2013, 41, 85-93. Bandekar, P.A., Putman, B., Thoma, G. and Matlock, M. (2022). Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of production and consumption of pulses in the United States. J. Environ. Manage. 2022, 302, 114062. Batlle-Bayer, L., Bala A., García-Herrero, I., Lemaire, E., Song, G., Aldaco, R. and Fullana-i- Palmer, P. (2019). The Spanish Dietary Guidelines: A potential tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of current dietary patterns. J. Clean. Prod., 213, 588-598. Batlle-Bayer, L., Bala, A., Albertí, J., Xifré, R., Aldaco, R. and Fullana-i-Palmer, P. (2020). Food affordability and nutritional values within the functional unit of a food LCA. An application on regional diets in Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 160, 104856. Batlle-Bayer, L., Bala, A., Aldaco, R., Vidal-Mones, B., Colom, R. and Fullana-I-Palmer, P. (2021). An explorative assessment of environmental and nutritional benefits of introducing lowcarbon meals to Barcelona schools. Sci. Total Environ, 756. Bôto, J.M., Rocha, A., Miguéis, V., Meireles, M. and Neto, B. (2022). Sustainability Dimensions of the Mediterranean Diet: A Systematic Review of the Indicators Used and Its Results. Adv. Nutr., 13(5), 2015-2038. Cambeses-Franco, C., González-García, S., Calvo-Malvar, M., Benítez-Estévez, A.J., Leis, R., Sánchez-Castro, J., Gude, F., Feijoo, G. and Moreira, M. T. (2023). A clustering approach to analyse the environmental and energetic impacts of Atlantic recipes - A Galician gastronomy case study. J. Clean. Prod., 383, 135360. Cappelletti, G.M., Ioppolo, G., Martino Nicoletti, G. and Russo, C. (2014). Energy requirement of extra virgin olive oil production. Sustainability 6, 4966-4974. 18 Ciaccia, C., Ceglie, F.G., Burgio, G., Madžarić, S., Testani, E., Muzzi, E., Mimiola, G. and Tittarelli, F. (2019). Impact of Agroecological Practices on Greenhouse Vegetable Production: Comparison among Organic Production Systems. Agronomy 9, 372. Clune, S., Crossin, E. and Verghese, K. (2017). Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J. Clean. Prod., 140, 766-783. Coelho, F.C., Coelho, E.M. and Egerer, M. (2018). Local food: Benefits and failings due to modern agriculture. Scientia Agricola 75(1), 84-94. Coley, D., Howard, M. and Winter, M. (2009). Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Polic., 34: 150-154. Conrad, Z., Niles, M.T., Neher, D.A., Roy, E.D., Tichenor, N.E. and Jahns, L. (2018). Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability. PLoS ONE 13(4), 0195405. Corrado, S., Luzzani, G., Trevisan, M. and Lamastra, L. (2019). Contribution of different life cycle stages to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with three balanced dietary patterns. Sci. Total Environ., 660, 622-630. de Laurentiis, V., Hunt, D.V.L., Lee, S.E. and Rogers, C.D.F. (2019). EATS: A life cycle-based decision support tool for local authorities and school caterers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 24, 1222- 1238. EC (European Commission) (2020). Farm to fork strategy. For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food systems. European Commission. Online: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf (11/11/2023). Esteve-Llorens, X., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G. and González-García, S. (2019). Linking environmental sustainability and nutritional quality of the Atlantic diet recommendations and real consumption habits in Galicia (NW Spain). Sci. Total Environ., 683, 71-79. FAO (2020). Faostat. Online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (10-01-2023). Gliessman, S.R. (2015) Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems, Third ed., 371. Taylor & Francis: New York. Gliessman, Steve. 2016. Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40, 187–189. Gliessman, S.R. (2018). Scaling-out and scaling-up agroecology. Agroecol. Sust. Food., 42(8), 841-842. 19 Gliessman, S.R. (2019). Scaling agroecology through policy change. Agroecol. Sust. Food., 43(4), 361-361. González-García, S., Esteve-Llorens, X., Moreira, M.T. and Feijoo, G.F. (2018). Carbon footprint and nutritional quality of different human dietary choices. Sci. Total Environ., 644, 77-94. Green, A., Nemecek, T., Chaudhary, A., Mathys, A. (2020). Assessing nutritional, health, and environmental sustainability dimensions of agri-food production. Glob Food Sec 26:100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100406 Hospido, A., Milà i Canals, LL., McLaren, S., Truninger, M., Edwards-Jones, G. and Clift, R. (2009). The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: A case study of environmental and social aspects. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 14, 381-391. Hostelería de España (2021). Yearbook of the hotel industry in Spain. Hostelería en España: Madrid. Huijbregts M.A.J., Hellweg S., Frischknecht, R., Hendriks, H.W.M., Hungerbu, K. and Hendriks AJ. (2010). Cumulative Energy Demand as Predictor for the Environmental Burden of Commodity Production. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44 (6): 2189–2196 Inci, H., Sogut, B., Gokdogan, O., Ayasan, G. and Sengul, T. (2016). Determining the energy usage efficiency and economic analysis of broiler chickens raised under organic conditions. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 86 (11): 1323–1327. Infante-Amate, J., Aguilera, E., González de Molina, M. (2018): Energy transition in Agri-food systems. Structural change, drivers and policy implications (Spain, 1960-2010) Energy Policy 122: 570-579 IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ (05/01/2023) IPES Food (2017). Unravelling the food-health nexus: Addressing practices, political economy, and power relations to build healthier food systems. The Global Alliance for the Future of Food and IPES-Food. IPES Food (2019). Towards a common food policy for the European Union. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems. Iribarren, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T. and Feijoo, G. (2010). Estimation of the carbon footprint of the Galician fishing activity (NW Spain). Sci. Total Environ., 408, 5284- 5294. 20 SEPEA (2019). A sustainable food system for the European Union. SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Union Academies), report number 7. Online: https://www.sapea.info/wpcontent/uploads/sustainable-food-system-expert-workshop-report.pdf (10/12/2023) Junta de Andalucía (2023). Andalusia Tourism Situation Survey. Institute of Statistics and Cartography of Andalusia: Andalucía. Online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodeestadisticaycartografia/turismo/index.htm (1/1/2023). Martín-Arrieta, E. and González, E. D. (2019). Energy and carbon footprints of food: Investigating the effect of cooking, Sustainable Production and Consumption 19,44-52. McMichael, P. (2021): Political economy of the global food and agriculture system in Kassam, A. and Kassam, L. (eds) Rethinking food and agriculture, Burlintong: Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier Méndez, E., Bacon, C.M. and Cohen, R. (2013). Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecol. Sust. Food., 37(1), 3-18. Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mancilla-Leytón, J. M., Delgado-Pertíñez, M. and Mena-Guerrero, Y. (2020). The Contribution of Traditional Meat Goat Farming Systems to Human Wellbeing and Its Importance for the Sustainability of This Livestock Subsector. Sustainability 12. Moreiras, O. (2005), Tablas de composición de alimentos. Pirámide, Madrid. Peano, C., Girgenti, V., Sciascia, S., Barone, E. and Sottile, F. (2022). Dietary Patterns at the Individual Level through a Nutritional and Environmental Approach: The Case Study of a School Canteen. Foods 11, 1008. Pérez-Neira, D., Copena, D., Armengot, L. and Simón¡, X. (2020a). Transportation can cancel out the ecological advantages of producing organic cacao: The carbon footprint of the globalized agrifood system of ecuadorian chocolate. Journal of Environmental Management 276: 111306. Pérez-Neira, D. and Grollmus-Venegas, D. (2018). Life-cycle energy assessment and carbon footprint of peri-urban horticulture. A comparative case study of local food systems in Spain. Landsc. Urban Plan., 172, 60-68. Pérez-Neira, D., Simón, X. and Copena, D. (2020b) Agroecological public policies to mitigate climate change: public food procurement for school canteens in the municipality of Ames (Galicia, Spain). Agroecol. Sust. Food 45(2). Pérez-Neira, D., Simón Fernández, X., Copena Rodríguez, D., Soler Montiel, M. and Delgado Cabeza, M. (2016). Analysis of the transport of imported food in Spain and its contribution to global warming. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 31(1), 37-48. 21 Pérez-Neira, D., Soler-Montiel, M. and Simon-Fernández, X. (2013). Energy analysis of organic farming in Andalusia (Spain). Agroecol. Sust. Food., 37, 231-256. Pérez Neira, D., Soler Montiel, M. and Simón Fernández, X. (2014). Energy indicators for organic livestock production: a case study from Andalusia, Southern Spain. Agroecol. Sust. Food. 2014, 38:317–335. Pirdashti, H., Pirdashti, M., Mohammadi, M., Baigi, M.G. and Movagharnejad, M. (2015). Efficient use of energy through organic rice-duck mutualism system. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 35, 1489-1497. Poore, J. and Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987-992. Ridoutt, B. (2021). Bringing nutrition and life cycle assessment together (nutritional LCA): opportunities and risks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 1932–1936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367- 021-01982-2 Rivera-Ferré, M. G., López-i-Gelats, F., Howden, M., Smith, P., Morton, J. F., and Herrero, M. (2016). Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: mitigation and adaptation options. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 7, 869–892. Schmidt-Rivera, X.C. and Azapagic, A. (2016). Life cycle costs and environmental impacts of production and consumption of ready and home-made meals. J. Clean. Prod., 112, 214e228. Simón, X., Copena, D. and Pérez-Neira, D. (2022). Assessment of the diet-environment-health- cost quadrilemma in public school canteens. an LCA case study in Galicia (Spain). Environ. Dev. Sustain. Simón, X., Montero, M. and Bermúdez, O. (2020). Advancing food security through agroecological technologies: The implementation of the biointensive method in the Dry Corridor of Nicaragua. Sustainability. 2020, 12, 844. Smith, L., Williams, A. and Pearce, B. (2015). The energy efficiency of organic agriculture: A review. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 30, 280-301. Takacs, B., Stegemann, J.A., Kalea, A.Z. and Borrion, A. (2022). Comparison of environmental impacts of individual meals - Does it really make a difference to choose plant-based meals instead of meat-based ones? J. Clean. Prod., 379(2), 134782. Taylor, R. C., Omed, R and Edwards-Jones, G. (2014). The greenhouse emissions footprint of free-range eggs. Poultry Science, 91 (1): 231–237. 22 Timpanaro, G., Branca, F., Cammarata, M., Falcone, G. and Scuderi, A. (2021). Life Cycle Assessment to Highlight the Environmental Burdens of Early Potato Production. Agronomy 11, 879. Tittonell, P. (2015). Food security and ecosystem services in a changing world: It is time for Agroecology. In FAO 2015: Agroecology for food security and nutrition. Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium, Rome, Italy. Treu, H., Nordborg, M., Cederberg, C., Heuer, T., Claupein, E., Hoffmann, E. and Berndes, G. (2017). Carbon footprints and land use of conventional and organic diets in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,161, 127-142. Trevilla-Espinal, Diana Lilia; Soto Pinto, María Lorena; Morales Helda; Estrada-Lugo, Erin Ingrid Jane (2021) Feminist agroecology: analyzing power relationships in food systems, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 45:7, 1029-1049, DOI: Üçtug, F.G., Günaydin, D., Hünkar, D. and Öngelen, C. (2021). Carbon footprints of omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan diets based on traditional Turkish cuisine. Sustain. Prod. Consum., 26, 597- 609. Ulaszewska, M. M., Luzzani, G., Pignatelli, S. and Capri, E. (2017). Assessment of diet-related GHG emissions using the environmental hourglass approach for the Mediterranean and new Nordic diets. Sci. Total Environ., 574, 829-836. Vitali, A., Grossi, G., Martino, G., Bernabucci, U., Nardone, A. and Lacetera, N. (2018). Carbon footprint of organic beef meat from farm to fork: A case study of short supply chain. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 98 (14): 5518–5524. Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T, Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., Van Grinsven, H., Sutton, M. A. and Oenema, O. (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Glob. Environ Change, 26m 196–205. Willett, W.C., Sacks, F., Trichopoulu, A., Drescher, G., Ferro-Luzzi, A., Helsing, E. and Trichopoulos, D. (1995). Mediterranean diet pyramid: a cultural model for healthy eating. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 61, 1402S-1406S. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B. (2019): Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems The Lancet, Volume 393, Issue 10170, 447 - 492 23 Appendix A A.1. Ingredients Ingredients and reference cooking times are taken from the recipe book in the article: "The 33 best recipes of Andalusian cuisine" (online: https://www.directoalpaladar.com/recetario/13- mejores-recetas-cocina-andaluza). Likewise, this information was completed by consulting different specialized traditional Andalusian cookbooks. Table A1. Ingredients and recipe of: Andalusian gazpacho (1) Andalusian gazpacho kg or min Pear tomato 1.00 Green bell pepper 0.10 Cucumber 0.10 Garlic clove 0.00 Olive oil 0.05 Hard loaf bread 0.05 Water 0.25 Salt 0.00 Vinegar 0.00 Preparation (min) 4.00 Table A2. Ingredients and recipe of: Poor man´s potatoes (2) Poor man's potatoes kg or min Potatoes 0.80 Onion 0.07 Garlic cloves 0.01 Green bell pepper 0.10 Red bell pepper 1/2 0.05 Parsley 0.00 Olive oil 0.10 Salt and pepper to taste 0.00 Preparation (min) 30.00 24 Table A3. Ingredients and recipe of: Friar's eggs (3) Friar's eggs kg or min Eggs 0.26 Chickpea flour 0.20 Water 1.5 glass 0.30 Salt to taste 0.00 Chives 0.07 Fresh parsley 0.00 Olive oil 0.02 Vinegar 0.01 Cooking (min) 25.00 Table A4. Ingredients and recipe of: Cheek meat 4) Cheek meat kg or min Pork cheeks 1.00 Wheat flour 0.05 Salt 0.00 Pepper 0.00 Olive oil 0.10 Onion 0.04 White wine 200 ml 0.20 Brandy 200 ml 0.20 Meat broth 200 ml 0.20 Vanilla pod 1 0.00 Table A5. Ingredients and recipe of: Flamenquines (5) Flamenquines kg or min Veal fillets 0.40 Cooked ham 0.13 Gorgonzola cheese 0.08 Wheat flour 0.03 Eggs 0.07 Bread crumbs 0.15 Olive oil 0.10 Salt 0.00 Pepper 0.00 Cooking (min) 10.00