Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adjusting food practices to climate prescriptions: vegetable gardening as a way to reduce food-related greenhouse gas emissions

  • Research article
  • Published:
Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

During a survey of an experiment that involved using “carbon calculators”, we investigated what people think and what they do when they consider the link between their food and the climate. To what extent do individuals adhere to or reject the “prescriptions” implicitly contained in carbon calculators and passed on by environmental social movements or the authorities. These prescriptions are considered as recommendations or advice drawn up by experts aiming to guide behaviours; they involve reducing reality in a measuring device against which behaviours are gauged (in this case, the quantity of greenhouse gases). Three main levers are envisaged so that households can reduce their food’s impact on the climate: reducing the consumption of meat, eating local and eating in-season produce. However, in opposition to this conception of individuals as rational and free to adapt their practices based on the information available to them, we suggest an analytic framework that takes into consideration the fact that food and eating is embedded in everyday and social relationships. Calculating one’s greenhouse gas emissions (GGE) provokes an intense moment of reflexivity during which routines are called into question and discrepancies between prescriptions and practices emerge. Drawing our inspiration from, on the one hand, the theory of practice, we examine how the prescriptions are connected to practices, and on the other, using a pragmatic approach, we analyse how individuals call into question their food practices to resolve the contradictions they identify, and devise adjustments. We show how people appraise the context globally, which leads them to subvert the logic of the calculator or address the prescriptions more broadly to lend value to other practices to which they attach importance and consider adapted. This enabled us to highlight vegetable gardening and promoting eating locally produced food as favoured adjustments. The qualitative approach allows us to emphasise how the measuring device, rather than supplying a behaviourist model, makes it possible to render more visible the forms of attachment and categories of judgement mobilised, which do not obey strict accounting logics or a formal, narrow rationality, and to examine “what counts when you’re counting”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Map 2
Graph 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the USA, see the census of calculators compiled by Kim & Neff, op. cit.; West et al. 2016; Shirley et al. 2012.; Kenny and Gray 2009 for Ireland, Birnik 2013, Wallén et al. 2004 for Sweden, among others.

  2. The “Personal Carbon Footprint Calculation” was used as the basis for the experiment we studied http://www.bilancarbonepersonnel.org/ consulted on 25 January 2018). It was devised by the French Agency for Environment and Energy Management (ADEME) from 2007; there are now several similar calculators in France offered by consultants and consultancy firms or environmental organisations and all inspired by the ADEME’s “Bilan Carbone”, which since 2011 has been a patented brand owned by the Association Bilan Carbone (ABC). Since then, other calculators have come to the fore, e.g. the ADEME’s “Coach Carbone” and the Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme. Under the name of “greenApps”, the number of these applications that calculate the carbon footprint of various activities has increased significantly (cf. http://www.greenapps.fr/ consulted on 27 February 2017).

  3. The authors identified and compared a total of 83 calculators that consider the environmental impacts of individual or household behaviours, and 21 of these include dietary choices (Kim & Neff, op. cit.).

  4. Meat is in the top rank of food called into question for its contribution to GGE and reducing its consumption is advised in several prospective scenarios (Agrimonde 2030; Civam Bretagne “Nourrir le monde en 2050” (Feeding the World in 2050). In terms of household consumption, food, according to a 2010 Ipsos/Greeninside survey, represents 22% of GGE, 15% of which is from meat and milk compared with 4% for fruit and vegetables. Furthermore, environmental groups tackling climate change, such as the Climate Action Network (2011), recommend reducing the consumption of meat, especially beef. These recommendations are incorporated in the Bilan Carbone (Carbon Footprint Calculator).

  5. We can cite, in France, the information campaign by the Réseau Action Climat, a member of the Climate Action Network, which launched a campaign in 2008 entitled “Des gaz à effet de serre dans mon assiette” (Greenhouse Gases on my Plate), passed on by the Alsace association Objectif Climat; the Chatham House think-tank that published a report in 2014 linking meat consumption and the impact on the climate (“Livestock – Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption” https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/livestock-climate-change-forgotten-sector-global-public-opinion-meat-and-dairy?dm_i=1TY5%2C30JL0%2CBHZILT%2CAUGSP%2C1 consulted in December 2017) and also the American organisation The Environmental Working Group, which in 2011 published a guide, “EWG’s Meat Eaters’ Guide to Climate Change & Health”.

  6. http://www.parc-vosges-nord.fr/ section “Comprendre/Les PNR français”, consulted in December 2017.

  7. For Baudrillard, everyday life “is not only the sum of day-to-day events and actions, the dimension of banality and repetition, it is a system of interpretation” (Baudrillard 1970, p. 33).

  8. Although Plessz et al. (2016) propose a theoretical framework to which we partially refer to analyse the prescriptions in food practices, they do not give a precise definition of the term, but merely distinguish between messages of an instructional nature from public actors and the norms (standards) that individuals adhere to.

  9. In 6 cases out of 16, it was not possible to find a timeslot that suited both partners.

  10. Dubuisson-Quellier and Gojard (2016) obtained similar results with regard to organic food.

  11. Culled cows are those slaughtered after a period of milk production, when they are too old.

  12. However, we should point out that when we consulted the scientific literature available, especially concerning the notion of “food miles” or in other words, the fact that the more miles a product travels during its production and distribution, the greater the impact on the climate and environment (The “RAC – Réseau action climat, (2010) brochure cites a pot of yoghurt), there is no consensus about the virtue of local productions. Transport is not the only aspect to consider; production conditions—extensive or intensive for raising animals, in heated greenhouses or in fields for vegetables—have just as great an effect on the calculation of the GGE of the product under consideration (cf. Pirog et al. (2001); Mundler and Rumpus (2012); Weber and Matthews (2008); Blanke and Burdick (2005). The environmental working group (2011).

  13. One of the households was composed of a company director and a senior manager, and the other a livestock farmer and an executive secretary; however, the latter was setting up an AMAP after participating in the PRNVNs’ experiment.

  14. Cf. Note 8.

  15. Studies measuring GGE from food or other aspects of daily life could be inspired and in return, inspire economic sociology studies on measurements, such as those by Cottereau (2016).

  16. Especially when interviewees mention types of arrangements and compromise with regard to the prescription to eat local, in-season produce.

References

  • Adamiec, C. (2014). Devenir sain : morales alimentaires, pratiques de santé et écologie de soi, thèse de doctorat en sociologie, sous la direction de N. Diasio: Université de Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ademe (2016), Manger mieux, gaspiller moins. Pour une consommation alimentaire plus durable, Guide pratique, June 2016, 24 p. http://www.ademe.fr/manger-mieux-gaspiller-moins

  • Ascher, F. (2005). Le mangeur hypermoderneUne figure de l’individu éclectique. Paris Odile Jacob 331 p.

  • Baudrillard J. (1970), La société de consommation, Paris, Gallimard-idées, (rééd. de 1978), 318 p.

  • Baysse-Lainé A., (2017), L’empreinte spatiale des approvisionnements alimentaires locaux : un modèle graphique, M@ppemonde, n. 122 · Article mis en ligne : 09/2017 http://mappemonde.mgm.fr/122as4/

  • Bingen J., Sage J., Sirieix L., (2010). Consumer coping strategies of eating local, in Emilie Coudel, Hubert Devautour, Christophe-Toussaint Soulard, Bernard Hubert, ISDA 2010, Jun 2010, Montpellier, Cirad-Inra-SupAgro, 9 p. <hal-00525606>.

  • Birnik, A. (2013). An evidence-based assessment of online carbon calculators. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17(September), 280–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanke, M. M., & Burdick, B. (2005). Food (miles) for thought. Energy balance for locally-grown versus imported apple fruit. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 12(3), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2005.05.252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1987). De la justification. Paris, Gallimard: Economies de la grandeur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P., (1979), De la distinction, critique sociale du jugement, Paris, Ed. de Minuit, 672 p.

  • Cottereau, A. (2016). “Ne pas confondre la mesure et l’évaluation : aspects de l’ethnocomptabilité”, Revue des politiques sociales et familiales, n. 123, Joindre les deux bouts. Equêtes d’ethnocomptabilité, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.3406/caf.2017.3179 consulted in June 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (2010 [1927]). Le public et ses problèmes, translated by Joëlle ZASK. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, A., & Jackson, T. (2009). The carbon footprint of UK households 1990-2004: a socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-multi-regional input-output model. Ecological Econonmics, 68(7), 2066–2077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubuisson-Quellier, & Gojard, S. (2016). Why are food practices not (more) environmentally friendly in France? The role of collective standards and symbolic boundaries in food practices. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubuisson-Quellier, S., & Plessz, M. (2013). La théorie des pratiques. Sociologie, 4(4) [mis en ligne le 28 janvier 2014, consulted on 25th January 2018] URL : http://journals.openedition.org/sociologie/2030.

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, University press.

  • Gill, B., & Moeller, S. (2018). GHG emissions and the rural-urban divide. A carbon footprint analysis based on the German Official Income and Expenditure Survey. Ecological Economics, 145, 160–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granchamp, L. (2015). Défi climatique et écologisation à petits pas. Changement des pratiques quotidiennes ou résistances ? Ann. Sci. Rés. Bios. Trans. Vosges du Nord -Pfälzerwald, 18(2015–2016), 90–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granchamp, L. (2016). Le sens de la mesure : Quantifier et modérer les émissions de gaz à effet de serre par la consommation des ménages. Revue des Sciences sociales, 55, 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granchamp L. & Rudolf F., 2009, « Calculer pour sauver le climat ? Responsabilité, autocontrainte et rationalisation des modes de vie face au changement climatique », in Michelle Dobré & Salvador Juan (dir.), Consommer autrement. La réforme écologique des modes de vie, L’harmattan, p. 187-198.

  • Hache, E. (2011). Ce à quoi nous tenons. In Propositions pour une écologie pragmatique. Paris: La découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halkier B., “A practice theoretical perspective on everyday dealings with environmental challenges of food consumption”, anthropology of food [En ligne], S5 | September 2009, published online on 10th September 2009.

  • Halkier B., Jensen I., (2011), “Doing “healthier” food in everyday life? A qualitative study of how Pakistani Danes handle nutritional communication”, Critical Public Health, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 471–483. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2011.594873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herpin, N., & Verger, D. (2008). Consommation et modes de vie en France : une approche économique et sociologique sur un demi-siècle. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • PNRVN-Parc Naturel Régional des Vosges du Nord. (2011). Diagnostic territorial, http://www.parc-vosges-nord.fr/ consulted in. January, 2018.

  • IPSOS, Logica Business Consulting, Green Inside, (2011). « Observatoire du bilan carbone des ménages », March 2011. www.ipsos.fr/sites/default/files/attachments/observatoire-bilan-carbone-menages.pdf (last consulted in February 2017).

  • Kaufmann, J.-C. (1996). L’entretien compréhensif, Paris, Nathan, collection Université (128 p).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, J.-C. (1997). Le cœur à l’ouvrage. Paris, Nathan: Théorie de l’action ménagère.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, J.-C. (2008). Quand Je est un autre. Armand Colin: Pourquoi et comment ça change en nous.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny T. & Gray N.F., (2009) Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 29, Issue 1, January, 1–6.

  • Kim, B., & Neff, R. (2009). Measurement and communication of greenhouse gas emission from U.S. food consumption via carbon calculators. Ecological Economics, 69, 186–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamine, C. (2008). Les intermittents du bio. Pour une sociologie pragmatique des choix alimentaires émergents (344 p). MSH: Quae éditions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenglart, F., Lesieur, C., & Pasquier, J.-L. (2010). Les émissions de CO2 du circuit économique en France. L’économie française, Insee Références, July, 2010, 101–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundler, P., & Rumpus, L. (2012). The energy efficiency of local food systems: a comparison between different modes of distribution. Food Policy, 37, 609–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogien A., « Pragmatismes et sociologies », Revue française de sociologie 2014/3 (Vol. 55), p. 563–579.

  • Paillé P. & Mucchielli A. (2003), L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales, Paris, A. Colin, coll. U., 424 p.

  • Pirog, Rich S.; Van Pelt, T., Enshayan, K. & Cook, E., (2001). “Food, fuel, and freeways: an Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions”, Leopold Center Pubs and Papers, no. 3, http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/leopold_pubspapers/3

  • Plessz, M., Dubuisson-Quellier, S., Gojard, S., & Barrey, S. (2016). How consumption prescriptions affect food practices: assessing the roles of household resources and life-course events. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(1), 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RAC – Réseau action climat, (2010) Des gaz à effet de serre dans mon assiette, http://www.rac-f.org/Des-gaz-a-effet-de-serre-dans-mon consulted on 28th January 2016.

  • Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseaux I. (2010), Etat des lieux international des programmes de carte carbone individuelle <hal-005521330>, consulted 28th April 2016.

  • Shirley, R., Jones, C., & Kammen, D. (2012). A household carbon footprint calculator for islands: case study of the United States Virgin Islands. Ecological Economics, 80, 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaargaren, O., & Loeber. (2012). Food practices in transition. Changing food consumption, retail and production in the age of reflexive modernity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203135921

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szuba, M. (2009). Le rationnement pour changer les modes de vie ? In M. Dobré & S. Juan (Eds.), Consommer autrement. La réforme écologique des modes de vie (Vol. 2009, pp. 267–275). L’Harmattan.

  • The Environmental Working Group, (2011), “EWG’s meat eaters guide to climate change & health”, https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/ consulted in February 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot, L. (2006). L’action au pluriel : régimes d’engagement. Paris: La découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiercelin, C. (1993). C. S. Peirce et le pragmatisme. Paris: Presses universitaires de France (Philosophies).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallén, A., Brandt, N., & Wennersten, R. (2004). Does the Swedish consumer’s choice of food influence greenhouse gas emissions? Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 525–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, C. L., & Matthews, H. S. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(10), 3508–3513. https://doi.org/10.1021/es702969f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, S. E., Owen, A., Axelsson, K., & West, C. D. (2016). Evaluating the use of a carbon footprint calculator: communicating impacts of consumption at household level and exploring mitigation options. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(3), 396–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DynamE UMR 7367 Université de Strasbourg/CNRS, Misha, 5 allée du général Rouvillois, 67083, Strasbourg cedex, France

    Laurence Granchamp

Authors
  1. Laurence Granchamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurence Granchamp.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Granchamp, L. Adjusting food practices to climate prescriptions: vegetable gardening as a way to reduce food-related greenhouse gas emissions. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 100, 1–25 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-019-00087-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-019-00087-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation