Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021) 28:1204–1223

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10567-9

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with vineyards

and winemaking. A case study in mountain areas
Amanda Laca 1 & Samuel Gancedo 1 & Adriana Laca 1 & Mario Díaz 1

Received: 21 March 2020 / Accepted: 18 August 2020 / Published online: 24 August 2020
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Mountain wines produced in specific mountain areas and following singular practices have gained popularity over the last few decades.
During this time, the environmental impacts associated with the food and beverage manufacturing sector have become a question of
interest. However, the environmental impacts derived from the production of this peculiar wine have scarcely been studied until now.
A mountain winery in north Spain has been analyzed as representative of PDO “Cangas” winemaking by means of life cycle
assessment (LCA). High-quality inventory data for one year of operation was obtained directly from this facility and two steps have
been considered, the vineyard and the winery phases. The main factors involved in grape cultivation and wine production were
included. In common with standard winemaking processes, the use of fertilizers and the production of glass bottles were the principal
hotspots in the grape cultivation and wine production phases, respectively. Additionally, in the winery here evaluated, waste manage-
ment also contributed notably to several impacts, mainly due to the employment of traditional practices such as the incineration in situ
of vineyard pruning wastes. The carbon footprint obtained for “Cangas” PDO wine was 2.35 kg of CO2eq per 0.75-l bottle, a value
within the range reported in the literature for different wines around the world (0.2–2.5 kg CO2eq per bottle). A sensitivity analysis has
shown that changes in vineyard productivity and the amount of fertilizers applied to the land would strongly affect the environmental
performance of the wine manufacturing process. Some alternative scenarios have been proposed, modifying the management of
pruning wastes in the vineyard and the packaging material in the winery. Results showed that environmental impacts associated with
the production of this mountain wine could be notably reduced simply by reusing a percentage of the bottles and/or composting the
organic wastes. Specifically, the carbon footprint would be 40% lower if these two improvements were implemented. Considering the
lack of similar studies, further research on the production of mountain wines should be carried out in other regions to increase the
knowledge about the environmental impacts associated with the manufacturing of this singular type of wine.

Keywords LCA . Mountain wine . Environmental impact . Carbon footprint . Impact categories

Highlights
• A Spanish mountain wine with PDO was analyzed by LCA from a Introduction
cradle to gate perspective.
• The vineyard phase and the production of glass bottles were the main hotspots.
• Mountain grapes and wine carbon footprints were obtained and
Food production is associated with complex environmental
compared with other wines worldwide. impacts, requiring considerable inputs of land, water, and en-
• Emissions from pruning waste incineration are the main contributor to ergy, and consequently, ecosystems are being severely dam-
wine carbon footprint. aged. Today, global food production causes more than 25% of
• Sensitivity analysis identified productivity and use of fertilizers as the
main variables in wine LCA.
global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
uses around one-third of the ice-free land area (Treu et al.
Responsible editor: Philippe Loubet
2017). In addition, food production must increase by 60%
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article by 2050 in order to meet the demands of the growing world
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10567-9) contains supplementary population (FAO 2018). Food systems are the main concern
material, which is available to authorized users.
of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2019).
* Amanda Laca Hence, an improvement in sustainability in the food produc-
lacaamanda@uniovi.es tion chains is nowadays a mandatory issue.
1
The wine industry is one of the principal industries in the
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University
of Oviedo, C/ Julián Clavería s/n, 33071 Oviedo, Spain
agri-food sector, generating significant profits around the
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
world. In this regard, in 2018, the global production of wine
reached approximately 290 million hectolitres (OIV 2019).
The economic and cultural importance attributed to wine pro-
duction around the world makes it essential to understand and
reduce the harmful environmental impacts associated with the
activities of this industry (Christ and Burritt 2013).
Furthermore, empirical studies have proved that customers
are sensitive to the concept of sustainable winemaking, and
there is even a trend towards environmentally friendly wines
(Benedetto 2013). The analysis of the environmental impact
of the wine sector started in the 1990s with semi-quantitative
methods, increased in intensity in the 2000s with the develop-
ment of carbon footprint assessments, and has become more
common since the 2010s (Rugani et al. 2013; Sacchelli et al.
2017). Nowadays, this is a topic of great interest and the num-
ber of studies published on the environmental performance of
winemaking has been increasing dramatically for the last 5
years (Figure S1). France, Spain, and Italy are the most im-
portant global wine producers and are rivals for the status of
number one producer in the world. So, it is understandable
that most of this research was carried out in Europe, mainly in
Italy (almost 50%) and Spain (20%) (Bonamente et al. 2016;
Bosco et al. 2011; Comandaru et al. 2012; Mattila et al. 2012;
Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2013). Most of this work employed LCA
methodology, although studies did not consider the same im-
pact categories, which are summarized in Table 1. It is signif-
icant that those investigations that only included one or two
categories always analyzed carbon footprint and/or water foot-
print, which indicates the growing interest in these environ-
mental performance indicators. Indeed, more than 80% of the
articles in the literature considered the “climate change cate-
gory,” while 75% of studies included one or more categories
regarding “resource depletion.”
In this context, it is remarkable that, as far as we know, only
one study has been published on the environmental perfor-
mance of mountain viticulture (Montepulciano red wine)
(Cichelli et al. 2016). This type of viticulture, also named
“heroic viticulture,” has gained popularity and is becoming a
worldwide phenomenon. Its main characteristics are that it is
carried out at altitudes of more than 500 m and on steep slopes
of 30% or more, with low yields per hectare and lack of mech-
anization. Despite the fact that heroic viticulture finds its roots
in Europe, it can also be found in South America and in the
Middle East (CERVIM 2019). This singular viticulture offers
many advantages for both red and white varieties, i.e., long
ripening periods, dramatic diurnal temperature swings, excep-
tional drainage and airflow, and rocky soils. Nevertheless,
there is the danger of frost and temperature extremes, vine
exposure to the sun, concerns about reaching full ripeness,
and one of the biggest deterrents: the impractical and expen-
sive reality of farming on a mountainside (PROWEIN 2019).
Considering all these peculiarities, it would be expected that
the impacts associated with mountain wine production would
1205
be different to those derived from ordinary viticulture systems
operating in low-lying, level terrain and so it is an interesting
topic to study.
With the largest area of vineyards of any country in the
world, Spain produces a wide variety of wines, many of them
included in the protected designation of origin (PDO). The
PDO “Cangas” mountain wine is one of the most singular
wines produced in this country, with only 40 Ha of vineyards
organized in small family-owned plots, and therefore, an in-
vestigation into the environmental performance of its produc-
tion offers a case study of great interest. Consequently, a
mountain winery in north Spain has been analyzed as repre-
sentative of PDO “Cangas” winemaking following LCA
methodology with two main objectives: firstly, to increase
the understanding of the environmental impacts associated
with mountain wine production in the context of the global
wine industry and, secondly, to propose realistic improvement
actions in order to reduce the environmental burdens derived
from mountain wine production.
Material and methods
Objectives and functional unit definition
Firstly, the environmental performance of producing wine
grapes from mountain vineyards was assessed by means of
LCA methodology. In this case, the functional unit was pro-
ducing 1 kg of wine grapes in PDO “Cangas” vineyards.
Using 1 kg of grapes as reference for the vineyard phase leads
to more accurate results than using cultivated area (Navarro
et al. 2017a). Secondly, and, employing the data obtained
from the vineyard analysis, the environmental impacts of pro-
ducing mountain wine were evaluated and the functional unit
chosen was the production of 1 bottle of PDO “Cangas” wine
(0.75 l).
System description and boundaries
The environmental assessment was carried out considering
two phases: the agricultural phase for grape production and
the winery phase. Distribution of wine to retail stores was not
included, so a cradle to winery gate perspective was
employed. In a recent review, Jourdaine et al. (2020) proposed
a harmonization procedure to compare literature about LCA
studies of wine production. These authors considered three
main steps in a winemaking process, namely, grape growing,
wine making, bottling, and packaging. In the present analysis,
grape growing is included in the agricultural phase while wine
making, bottling, and packaging are included in the winery
phase. The small mountain winery selected for this case study
is in northern Spain (Cangas, Asturias). The PDO “Cangas”
wine is produced in a small area of the Asturian south-west by
 1206

Table 1 Summary of impact categories included in studies in the literature focused on the study of the environmental impacts derived from wine production by means of LCA methodology

Number of impact categories included Total

categories
Reference Acidification Biodiversity Climate Ecotoxicity Eutrophication Human Ionizing Land Particulate Photochemical Resource considered
change toxicity radiation use matter ozone depletion
formation

Borsato et al. (2019) - - - - - - - - - - + (1) 1

Chiriacò et al. (2019) - - + (1) - - - - - - - - 1
Ponstein et al. (2019a) - - + (1) - - - - - - - - 1
Ponstein et al. (2019b) - - + (1) - - - - - - - - 1
Villanueva-Rey et al. - - - - - - - - - - + (1) 1
(2018)
Amienyo et al. (2017) + (1) - + (1) + (3) + (2) + (1) + (1) + (3) + (1) + (1) + (4) 18
Iannone et al. (2016) + (2) - + (1) + (2) + (1) + (4) + (1) + (1) - - + (3) 15
Meneses et al. (2016) + (1) - + (1) - + (1) + (1) - + (1) - - + (1) 6
Rinaldi et al. (2016) - - + (1) - - - - - - - + (1) 2
Chiusano et al. (2015) + (1) - + (1) - + (1) - - - + (2) + (1) 6
De Marco et al. (2015) - - + (1) - - - - - - - - 1
Villanueva-Rey et al. - - - - - - - + (1) - - - 1
(2015)
Amienyo et al. (2014) + (1) - + (1) + (3) + (1) + (1) - - - + (1) + (4) 12
Arzoumanidis et al. + (1) - + (2) + (3) + (1) + (1) + (1) + (3) + (1) + (1) + (3) 17
(2014)
Fusi et al. (2014) + (1) - + (1) - + (1) - - - - + (1) + (2) 6
Iannone et al. (2014) + (1) - + (1) - + (1) - - - - + (1) + (2) 6
Jiménez et al. (2014) + (1) - + (1) + (1) + (1) + (3) + (1) + (1) - - + (3) 12
Quinteiro et al. (2014) - - - - - - - - - - + (1) 1
Villanueva-Rey et al. + (1) - + (1) + (0.5) + (1) + (0.5) - + (1) - + (1) + (2) 8
(2014)
Benedetto (2013) + (1) - + (1) - + (1) - - - - - + (1) 4
Herath et al. (2013) - - - - - - - - - - + (1) 1
Neto et al. (2013) + (1) - + (1) + (5) + (1) + (1) - + (1) - + (1) + (2) 13
Vázquez-Rowe et al. - - + (1) - - - - - - - - 1
(2013)
Comandaru et al. (2012) + (1) - + (1) + (1) + (1) + (3) + (1) + (1) - - + (3) 12
+ (1) - + (1) + (1) + (1) + (3) + (1) + (1) - - + (5) 14
Mattila et al. (2012) - - + (1) - - - - - - - + (1) 2
Pattara et al. (2012) - - + (1) - - - - - - - - 1
Point et al. (2012) + (1) - + (1) + (2) + (1) - - - - + (1) + (3) 9
Gazulla et al. (2010) + (1) - + (1) - + (1) - - - - + (1) + (2) 6
Aranda et al. (2005) + (0.5) - + (1) + (1) + (0.5) + (3) + (1) + (1) - - + (3) 11

Numbers in brackets indicate the different subcategories within each impact category
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
small family-owned wineries that employ very similar proce-
dures to make the wine. These procedures are established and
controlled by the Control Board of Designation of Protected
Origin “Cangas wine” (Ministry of Rural Environment and
Fishing of the Principality of Asturias). For this reason, the
winery here analyzed is representative of other wineries that
produce this type of wine. Being made with unique varieties,
these singular wines are produced from high mountain
vineyards (heroic viticulture), which are characterized by cul-
tivation of vines in mountain areas (altitude above 500 m
above sea level), cultivation on steep slopes (areas with more
than 30% incline), and vineyards on small properties (in
plots).
The winery under study owns 3.5 ha of vineyards (3 ha of
red vines and 0.5 ha of white vines), which produced 40% of
the grapes employed to make wine in the year of the LCA
(10,881 kg of grapes), while the rest of the grapes (60%) were
supplied by other vineyards included in the PDO. This facility
produces red (60%) and white (40%) wines, and since the
viticulture and the vinification steps are very similar in both
cases and, in addition, the grape yields were very similar,
allocation was not considered in the LCA analyses.
Inventory analysis
Data for 2017 were mainly collected through personal inter-
views with the owner of the winery. A scheme of the system
boundaries is shown in Fig. 1, and the inventory data are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Vineyards
To consider the impacts derived from producing fertilizers,
their main components were included in the inventory (N,
P2O5, K2O, CaO, MgO, SO3, and B). The main phytosanitary
products applied to the vineyards were sulfur, dithiocarba-
mate, and common fungicide, also included in the inventory.
The emissions to air derived from fertilizer and phytosanitary
products application have also been considered (NH3, NO2,
and N2O). The emissions have been calculated employing the
following emission factors (with respect to the nitrogen ap-
plied) 0.015, 0.003, and 0.01 for NH3, NO2, and N2O, respec-
tively (IPCC 2006; MITECO 2019). Emissions to soil derived
from fertilizer and phytosanitary product application have
been included in the inventory assuming that 20% of any
applied product leaches to the soil (INIA 2013). It should be
indicated that, although only those compounds with a contri-
bution higher than 1% of total soil emissions have been in-
cluded, copper (0.4% of total soil emissions) has been taken
into account due to its well-known potential toxic effects on
aquatic systems. The total amount of copper applied to the soil
in the vineyard under study was approximately 0.6 kg ha−1.
This value is within the range (0.2–2.0 kg ha−1) of reported
1207
application doses for treatments with copper-based fungicides
in vineyards (Peña et al. 2018).
Since vineyards were only rain-fed, water was not included
in the inventory. Diesel corresponds to the transportation of
human labor to the vineyards, since pruning, fertilizer and
phytosanitary product application, and grape harvesting were
performed manually. Emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O, de-
rived from diesel combustion, were included, using the values
reported for agricultural vehicles in 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2006), whereas
CO, HC (hydrocarbons), NOx, and PM (particulate matter)
were considered as the maximum emissions established in
Euro standards of European Union for heavy-duty vehicles
as defined in Directive 70/156/EC (Reşitoğlu et al. 2015).
The CO2 uptake due to the growth of grapes was calculated
by considering the carbon dioxide captured in the grape juice
and also in the grape skin. To obtain the amount of CO2
uptake in the must, it was calculated that the fermentation of
1 kg of glucose or fructose generates 0.51 kg of ethanol and
0.49 kg of CO2, in accordance with the reaction stoichiometry
(Martins et al. 2018). A weighted arithmetic mean of the al-
cohol grade of wine produced in the winery was obtained
(12.37%), and taking into account that the winery produced
18,550 l of wine, this value was employed to obtain the CO2
captured by the grape juice during the viticulture phase.
Additionally, the amount of CO2 captured in the grape skin
was obtained by assuming that the juice extracted corresponds
to 70% of the grape weight, so the remaining 30% corre-
sponds to wastes (stems, seeds, and skins). The dry extract
of these wastes is 26.4% and they contain a proportion of
carbon of 46.6% (Ferrer et al. 1993). Thus, the quantity of
CO2 captured in the grape skins can be obtained from the total
weight of grapes used, which was 26,898.4 kg. So, the total
CO2 uptake due to the growth of the grapes was 328.5 g per
FU.
The amount of carbon dioxide captured during vine growth
was obtained as follows. In accordance with Moreno (2011),
the amount of pruning wastes generated was calculated by
considering the grape varieties cultivated in the vineyard,
i.e., albarín tinto, carrasquín, mencía, verdejo tinto, and
albarín blanco, and the cultivated surface (0.5 ha of white
grapes with 4000 grapevines per ha and 3 ha of red grapes
with 5000 grapevines per ha). It was taken into account that
dry extracts of wastes are 48.2% and 48.8% for white and red
grapevines, respectively, and the carbon content is 46.1% and
46.4% in white and red grapevines, respectively (Mendívil
et al. 2013). So, a CO2 uptake due to the vine growth of
916.9 g per FU was calculated.
The assumptions described below were used to estimate the
emissions originating from the incineration of pruning waste.
To calculate the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere,
the carbon content of the grapevines mentioned in the previ-
ous paragraph was employed. The emissions of CH4 and CO
1208 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223

were calculated from the emission factors (with respect to the Table 2 Inventory data of the vineyard, expressed per functional unit
(FU = 1 kg of grapes)
total carbon contained in the wastes) for agricultural waste
incineration, 0.005 and 0.06, respectively (Junta of Inputs
Andalucía 2009) and the CO2 emissions were obtained by 1. Fertilizer production (g)
a.Nitrogen (N) 1.87
difference. In the same manner, since the nitrogen content of b.Phosphate (P2O5) 2.50
white and red grapevines is 0.77% and 0.75%, respectively c.Potassium (K2O) 6.23
(Mendívil et al. 2013), the emissions of N2O and NOx were d.Calcium (CaO) 2.50
e.Magnesium (MgO) 0.63
calculated using the emission factors (with respect to the total f.Sulfur (SO3) 2.50
nitrogen contained in the wastes) of 0.007 and 0.12, respec- g.Boron (B) 0.06
tively (Junta of Andalucía 2009). To obtain the amounts of the 2. Phytosanitary product production (g)
a.Sulfur (S) 7.24
remaining greenhouse gases released by the burning of prun-
b.Dithiocarbamate 0.15
ing wastes, i.e., SOx, NH3 and non-methane volatile organic c.Others 1.48
compounds (NMVOCs), the CORINAIR method was 3. Diesel production (g) 36.10
employed (EEA 2007). The NMVOCs considered were bu- 4. CO2 uptake (vine growth and grape production) (g) 1245.40
5. Land occupation (m2/y) 3.20
tane, propane, and ethane. Outputs
1. Grapes (kg) 1.00
Winery 2. Incineration emissions (pruning wastes) (g)
a.CO2 803.80
b.CH4 1.50
Grapes, packaging material (boxes, cork stoppers, bottles, c.CO 31.50
caps, and labels), electricity, and tap water were considered d.N2O 0.04
e.NOx 1.44
as inputs in the winery phase. The packaging materials were f.SOx 0.36
transported by truck to the winery, so transport was included g.Butane 1.60
in the inventory as kg km. The distribution of wine bottles was h.Propane 1.60
i.Ethane 1.60
not included in this study since a “cradle to winery gate” j.NH3 0.41
perspective was considered. The only chemical product 3. Diesel emissions (combustion) (g)
employed for cleaning was NaOH. Other enological raw ma- a.CO2 115.00
b.CH4 0.006
terials, i.e., clarifying agents and SO2, were also included in c.N2O 0.045
the inventory. d.CO 0.65
CO2 emissions during the fermentation process were taken e.HC 0.056
f.NOx 0.174
into account as an output. Thus, by considering the ethanol
g.PM 0.004
content of the different wines produced and using the equiv- 4. Emissions derived from the application of fertilizers and phytosanitary
alence cited previously, the CO2 emitted by the alcoholic fer- products (g)
mentation was estimated. Wastewater and solid wastes (main- To soil:
a.N 0.37
ly seeds, pulp and skins, grape stems, and grape leaves) were b.P2O5 0.50
also considered. c.K 0.86
d.Ca 0.26
e.Mg 0.048
Impact assessment f.S 1.65
g.Cu 0.016
Impact assessment was carried out with the LCA software To air:
a.NH3 0.036
package SimaPro v8 using the ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) b.NH3 0.018
V1.01 method, which included 18 impact category indicators c.NO2 0.029
(global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, ionizing radi-
ation, ozone formation-human health, fine particulate matter
formation, ozone formation-terrestrial ecosystems, terrestrial
acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophica- “clarifying (pea protein)” (other raw materials subsystem)
tion, terrestrial ecotoxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity, marine was also obtained from Agri-footprint database, whereas data
ecotoxicity, human carcinogenic toxicity, human non- of “aluminium” (packaging material subsystem) employed
carcinogenic toxicity, land use, mineral resource scarcity, fos- USLCI as database.
sil resource scarcity, and water consumption). All data were
obtained from the EcoInvent v3, excepting for the following Carbon footprint
inventory items. In the agricultural phase, “sulphur” and
“others” (phytosanitary products production subsystem) used The carbon footprint (CF) was obtained employing the
Agri-footprint as database. In the winery phase, data of Greenhouse Gas Protocol V1.02/C02 eq (kg) method
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223 1209

(GHGP 2020) by means of the LCA software package
SimaPro v8. The databases employed were the same de-
scribed in the “Impact assessment” section. An overview of
main CO2 inputs and outputs in vineyard and winery phases
can be seen in Fig. 2.
emissions from incineration were removed from the vineyard
phase inventory, and the transport of pruning and organic
wastes to the waste treatment facilities and the composting
step were included.
Scenario 4 included the improvements assumed in scenar-
ios 2 and 3.

Alternative scenarios
Results and discussion
Three alternative scenarios have been considered in order to
compare them with the real analysis (scenario 1). As the pro- Vineyard phase
duction of glass bottles was found to be one of the main
culprits of the environmental impacts derived from the winery Characterization results obtained with the ReCiPe Midpoint
phase, in scenario 2, the reuse of 50% of the bottles was method for the vineyard phase are shown in Fig. 3. These
envisaged. The increases in water consumption and the results revealed fertilizers to be the subsystem with the highest
cleaning products needed to wash the reused bottles were environmental loads in nine of the categories considered (eu-
included in the system. The electricity consumption subsys- trophication categories, toxicity categories, mineral resource
tem was not modified, since a small-scale manual bottle wash- scarcity, and water consumption), contributing more than
ing machine was envisaged. The transport subsystem was 65% of the harmful impact in these categories. As expected,
corrected according to the reduction in the use of new bottles, land use impacts can be almost totally attributed to land occu-
it being assumed that the transport of reused bottles could be pation. Emissions derived from the application of
disregarded, since collection at a local level was supposed. phytosanitary products and fertilizers were the main culprit
In order to reduce the emissions originating from pruning of impacts in the fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial
in the vineyard phase, in scenario 3, these wastes and also the acidification, and stratospheric ozone depletion categories
solid residues generated during the vinification step were (60, 70, and 90%). This is in agreement with results reported
treated as if they had been composted. Thus, in this scenario, by Ferrari et al. (2018), who analyzed the environmental im-
pacts of an Italian red wine vineyard and found that direct
emissions of fertilizers and pesticides and land occupation
Table 3 Inventory data for the winemaking procedure, expressed per
functional unit (FU = 1 wine bottle (0.75 L)) were critical issues to consider. Thus, and although different
factors (not only agricultural practices, but also grape variety,
Inputs soil characteristics, and local climate conditions) affect the
1. Grapes (kg) 1.09 impacts derived from the viticulture phase (Ferrara and De
2. Other raw materials (g) Feo 2018), reduced use of plant protection treatments and
a.Clarifying (pea protein) 1.50 fertilization processes would improve the vineyard impacts
b.Additive (SO2) 0.01 (Cichelli et al. 2016).
3. Electricity (kWh) 0.19 Emissions derived from pruning waste incineration had a
4. Packaging material (g) notable effect on the global warming and ozone formation
a.Bottle 330.00 categories. Although, in this case, all activities were carried
b.Cork 5.24 out manually on the vineyard and it has been reported that
c.Label 3.93 manual work notably decreased environmental impacts in
d.Aluminum 1.13 comparison with mechanized activities (Villanueva-Rey
e.Plastic (LDPE) 0.96 et al. 2014); the production of the diesel consumed for the
f.Cardboard 43.00 transport of workers and grapes is important in many of the
5. Cleaning products (NaOH) (g) 0.38 analyzed categories. Specifically, this subsystem was respon-
6. Tap water (L) 1.42 sible for more than 70% of the impact of the fossil resources
7. Transport (kg km) 381.00 scarcity category. Emissions derived from incineration, appli-
Outputs cation of chemicals, and diesel use were responsible for more
1. Wine (L) 0.75 than 90% of the global warming impact. Nevertheless, in this
2. Emissions from fermentation process (CO2) (g) 70.00 category, the beneficious effect of the CO2 uptake by vine
3. Wastes (g) growth should be noticed, as it balanced 84% of the harmful
a.Wastewater (to treatment) 1420.00 contribution.
b.Municipal solid wastes (to landfill) 334.30 Regarding the carbon footprint, and according to the ISO
14067 standard, only biogenic and fossil carbon should be
1210
Fig. 1 System boundaries
included in the CF calculation, so these categories included
the carbon released from fossil fuels and from biogenic
sources, but not the CO2 stored in plants and trees as they
grow (Kutnar and Hill 2016). Hence, the beneficial effect of
CO2 uptake observed in the global warming potential category
is not considered in the CF calculation, following ISO
recommendations.
The carbon footprint obtained here was 1.42 kg CO2eq per
kg of grapes, a value slightly above the range reported in the
literature, which was 0.22–1.28 kg CO2eq per kg of grapes
(Bosco et al. 2011; Villanueva-Rey et al. 2014). Previous
studies reported that in the vineyard phase, the main contribu-
tion to the CF came from the diesel employed in field work
(production and combustion) (Jradi et al. 2018; Marras et al.
2015; Navarro et al. 2017b). Certainly, Recchia et al. (2018)
indicated that diesel consumption should be limited specifi-
cally during the harvesting, the pesticide application, and the
ligature phases in order to reduce CO2eq emission. This was
not the case in the vineyards considered here, since all field
work was performed manually, and the consumption of diesel
was only due to the transport of the workers to the vineyards.
In fact, emissions derived from the production and combus-
tion of diesel contributed approximately 1% and less than
10% to CF, respectively. On the contrary, in the present work,
it is noteworthy, as can be seen in Fig. 4a, that the emissions
released by the incineration of pruning residues were the main
culprit of the CF of grapes (more than 60% of the CF value).
Additionally, the emissions derived from phytosanitary prod-
ucts and fertilizer application were responsible for almost 25%
of the CF.
The importance of harvest yield has proved to be a signif-
icant parameter with respect to the CF of wine grapes
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
(Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2013). Depending on the vine variety,
density of plantation, and pruning scheme, the harvest could
yield between 5 and 20 tons of grapes per ha and year (FAO
2009). In Europe, values between 2.5 and 17 tons per ha and
year have been described; however, in Spain, France, and
Italy, yields most frequently reported in the literature are 5–
11 tons per ha and year (Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2013; Navarro
et al. 2017b). In the present investigation, a yield of 3.1 tons
per ha and year was found, a value within the characteristic
range of European vineyards, but lower than the typical yields
described for Spanish grapevines. Jradi et al. (2018) asserted
that, in terms of harvest yield, non-traditional wineries were
more efficient than traditional ones in Spain. In addition, it
should be borne in mind that one of the main characteristics
of mountain viticulture is the low yield per hectare (Cichelli
et al. 2016). This could easily explain the low yield found
here, since the vineyards analyzed here are mountain crops
that, due to their peculiarities, must be managed traditionally.
It is obvious that higher yields would improve the grapes’ CF
value, but it also should be considered that the quality of the
wine could be adversely affected by improving the produc-
tivity of the vines. Certainly, in Italy, Parpinello et al.
(2019) pointed out that lower yields resulted in a general
enhancement of the quality of Sangiovese red wines.
Moreover, one of the main factors responsible for quality
parameters of grapes, such as phenol content or aroma
components, is the viticultural management systems
(Doring et al. 2015). Thus, in the case study analyzed here,
a change in agricultural practices, i.e., composting of prun-
ing wastes instead of incinerating them, would be the best
way to reduce the CF of grapes without modifying the
characteristics of the wine.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
Fig. 2 Overview of main CO2 inputs and outputs in vineyard and winery phase (CO2 uptake in green, main emissions of fossil CO2 in gray, and main
emissions of biogenic CO2 in yellow)
Winery phase
Since the environmental impacts depend on the system
boundaries and the categories considered, there is not total
coincidence in the literature about which are the critical
hotspots for the impacts derived from wine production.
Nevertheless, in general, when a cradle to winery gate per-
spective is assumed, it has usually been found that the viticul-
ture and packaging have the greatest impact on winemaking
processes (Ferrara and De Feo 2018).
Figure 5 shows results obtained with the ReCiPe Midpoint
method for the winery in Cangas. As can be observed, pack-
aging material was a notable contributor, being responsible for
more than 25% of the harmful impact found in 12 of the 18
categories considered. Specifically, the production of glass
bottles was the principal factor involved in these impacts.
This is in agreement with results reported in the literature,
since several authors described bottles as one of the main
causes of the global impacts in wine production (Amienyo
et al. 2014; Ardente et al. 2006; Benedetto 2013; Ferrara and
De Feo 2018; Fusi et al. 2014; Gazulla et al. 2010; Meneses
et al. 2016; Neto et al. 2013; Pizzigallo et al. 2008).
Wastes originated almost all the adverse impacts observed
in the marine eutrophication, freshwater ecotoxicity, marine
1211
ecotoxicity, and human non-carcinogenic toxicity categories
(80–90%). This is because the solid wastes were landfilled,
instead of being recycled. On the other hand, this subsystem
had a beneficious effect on the water consumption category,
since wastewater was treated, and once treated, it was returned
to the environment.
The production of grapes (vineyard phase) was responsible
for almost all the harmful impact in the stratospheric ozone
depletion and land use categories. Additionally, it is also an
important subsystem (> 30%) in the mineral resource scarcity,
fossil resource scarcity, terrestrial acidification, ozone forma-
tion (terrestrial ecosystems), and fine particulate matter forma-
tion categories.
Electricity contributed to all the categories considered and
it was responsible for more than 50% of the harmful impact in
the ionizing radiation category. It is well known that
electricity-generating technologies frequently employed in
Europe (nuclear, fuel cycle, and fossil fuel energy) entail the
production of this radiation (UNSCEAR 2017).
When transport to retail implied long distances, it was also
one of the main hotspots regarding the environmental perfor-
mance of wine producing process, as was pointed out by
Amienyo et al. (2014), who analyzed the environmental im-
pacts of Australian red wine consumption in the UK.
1212
Fig. 3 Characterization results obtained for the vineyard phase using ReCiPe Midpoint (FU, 1 kg of grapes)
Similarly, Fusi et al. (2014) reported that the transportation
impact of Sardinian wine was found to be relevant for long
distance distribution (USA). Point et al. (2012) studied the full
life cycle of wine produced and consumed in Nova Scotia and
concluded that viticulture and consumer transport were the
greatest contributions to the total impacts. In the case studied
here, only the transport of raw materials was included in the
study and only the contribution of this subsystem to terrestrial
ecotoxicity (41%) was worthy of note. “Cangas” PDO wine is
mainly consumed locally, in the region where it is produced
(i.e., in the Principality of Asturias), so it is expected that if
transport to retail was included in the study, results would not
be greatly affected.
Fermentation emissions only exerted a perceptible effect
on the global warming category (7%), while tap water affected
only the water consumption category (16%). Cleaning prod-
ucts and other raw materials subsystems, which take into ac-
count the impacts derived from the production of these mate-
rials, scarcely contributed to the environmental impacts de-
rived from wine production in any of the categories
considered.
The impact in the global warming category derived from
making a product is usually expressed as the carbon footprint,
which is only one part of the whole. However, CF is a very
effective tool from a communication point of view (Abín et al.
2018; Canellada et al. 2018; Casolani et al. 2016). Indeed,
nowadays, public authorities and citizens are particularly
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
sensitive to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Additionally,
the EU Renewable Energy and Climate Change Package sets
a 20% reduction goal in GHG emissions by 2020 (Asdrubali
et al. 2013). Table 4 summarizes CF values of different wines
worldwide that range between 0.77 and 3.22 kg CO2eq per
0.75-l bottle of wine (“cradle to grave”). As can be seen in this
table, it is noticeable that there is not much agreement in the
literature about which are the main contributors to wine CF.
When a “cradle to grave” perspective is considered, some
authors reported packaging and/or distribution as the principal
culprit of carbon footprint value (Ardente et al. 2006;
Bonamente et al. 2016; Bosco et al. 2011; Pattara et al.
2012; Rinaldi et al. 2016; Scrucca et al. 2018). On the con-
trary, other researchers picked out the viticulture phase as one
of the main factors affecting carbon footprint (Amienyo et al.
2014; Gazulla et al. 2010; Point et al. 2012). If a “cradle to
winery gate” perspective is assumed, then most studies coin-
cided that the winery phase (mainly the bottling step) is the
principal contributor to wine CF (Benedetto 2013; Chiriacò
et al. 2019; Navarro et al. 2017b; Ponstein et al. 2019b), and
contrarily, Chiusano et al. (2015) remarked that the vineyard
phase was mainly responsible for the CF value. However, it
should be taken into account that the former authors applied
LCA only to two model scenarios.
Rugani et al. (2013) carried out a review on carbon foot-
print in the wine sector and reported that, in general, the con-
tribution from biogenic carbon emissions to the overall CF of
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223 1213

a
1300 Incineraon emissions
1200 Phytosanitaries and ferlisers emissions
1100 Diesel emissions
Ferlisers producon
1000
Diesel producon
900 Phytosanitaries producon
800 Land occupaon
CO2eq (g)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Fossil CO2 eq Biogenic CO2 eq

b
1300
1200
1100
1000 Electricity

900 Wastes

800 Transport
CO2eq (g)

700 Fermentaon emissions

600 Other raw materials

500 Cleaning products

400 Packaging material

300 Tap water

200 Grapes

100
0
Fossil CO2 eq Biogenic CO2 eq
Fig. 4 Carbon footprint obtained for the vineyard phase (a) (FU, 1 kg of grapes) and for the winery phase (b) (FU, 1 wine bottle) using GreenHouse Gas
Protocol. Only biogenic and fossil CO2eq have been considered

wine was marginal because, usually, only fossil-based GHG considering both, fossil and biogenic carbon, to calculate the
sources were included in the studies. Nevertheless, as previ- CF of a product. Figure 4b shows the contribution of the
ously commented, ISO 14067 standard recommends subsystems to the CF of the “Cangas” PDO wine. In this case,
1214
1.14 and 1.21 kg CO2eq per bottle corresponded to fossil and
biogenic carbon, respectively; i.e., more than 50% of GHG
emissions comes from biogenic sources. Production of grapes
was the main contributor to biogenic carbon (72%), followed
by the wastes subsystem (20%). It has been reported that CO2
emissions from fermentation contributed between 15 and 24%
of the CF of the vinification process, a value higher than that
found here (6%) (Rugani et al. 2013). Fossil carbon emission
was again mainly due to the grapes subsystem (59%), more
particularly to the emissions from fertilizer application, and
packaging material production contributed 28% to fossil-
based GHG emissions. The GHG emissions from the produc-
tion of grid electricity vary strongly depending on the country
of origin, which reflects the respective shares of fossil fuels,
nuclear, and renewable energies, as well as distribution losses.
Electricity produced in Spain caused 0.37 kg CO2eq per kWh
(Ponstein et al. 2019a). In this case, electricity was responsible
only for 6% and less than 1% of fossil and biogenic carbon
emissions, respectively.
As recommended, the CF of the wine here analyzed was
obtained by considering fossil and biogenic GHG sources and
without taking into account CO2 uptake, resulting in a value of
2.35 kg CO2eq per bottle of “Cangas” PDO wine. This value
is within the range described in the literature for wines pro-
duced worldwide (see Table 4). The only work found in liter-
ature for wine production from mountain viticulture (Cichelli
et al. 2016) reported notably lower carbon footprint values
(0.14–0.18 kg CO2eq per bottle). However, it should be con-
sidered that these authors excluded from the study the waste
management, the packaging, the transport, and the consump-
tion phases, and in addition, it is not clear if the CO2 uptake is
included in the calculation of the CF.
In this case study, grape production, packaging material
production, and waste management were mainly responsible
for the carbon footprint associated with this wine (Fig. 4b).
The vineyard phase has been reported as presenting a wider
range of variation, with emissions of CO2eq due to this phase
of between 0.17 and 2.5 kg CO2eq per bottle (Bosco et al.
2011; Navarro et al. 2017b; Villanueva-Rey et al. 2014). In
the current work, the vineyard phase contributed more than
65% of the CF of the wine. That is 1.54 kg CO2eq per bottle, a
value within the range reported for other wines.
As mentioned in the “Material and methods” section, in the
winery analyzed here, the vinification steps are very similar
for red and white wine, and additionally, the grape yields were
very similar, so the CF value was the same for a bottle of red
or white “Cangas” PDO wine. Rinaldi et al. (2016) also re-
ported similar CF values for Italian red and white wines (1.43
and 1.38 kg CO2eq/bottle for red and white wine, respective-
ly), and the small difference found was due to the heavier
bottle used in the case of the red wine. In addition, in a recent
review, Ferrara and De Feo (2018) claimed that the environ-
mental performances of red and white wines were very
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
similar, although results were affected by a very high
variability. In this context, Iannone et al. (2016) reported that
refined white wines showed higher impacts on global
warming potential, whereas red wine impacts were higher in
the other impact categories considered by these authors.
Furthermore, Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2013) suggested that in
general, white wines have slightly lower carbon footprints
than red ones. However, these same authors analyzed the CF
of several red and white Spanish wines and found that
“Ribeiro” wine (a PDO white wine) was the one with the
highest CF (2.5 kg CO2eq per bottle). All these results clearly
indicate that CF is not determined by the wine color, but that
several other factors are involved.
Sensitivity analysis
Since LCA requires many input parameters and many of these
parameters imply a degree of uncertainty, a sensitivity analy-
sis was carried out to evaluate the influence of some of them
on the impacts derived from wine production. The parameters
analyzed have been selected from those that most affected the
environmental performance of the system studied and consid-
ering which of them are more likely to be modified from 1
year to another or between wineries.
Productivity of the vineyard: envisaging values 50% higher
and 50% lower than in the case study considered in this work.
This implies a productivity of 4.7 (case PH) and 1.6 (case PL)
tons of grapes per ha, respectively.
Fertilizers: in the case study, fertilizers are applied every 3
years. For the analysis, an average value was considered. In
the sensitivity analysis, two extreme cases were contemplated;
i.e., fertilizers are not applied (case FO) and the total amount
of fertilizers used in three years are applied (case FT).
Vine growth: contemplating 30% higher growth (case VH)
and 30% lower (case VL) than in the case study analyzed.
Grape yield: contemplating limits of 6% higher (75%)
(case YH) and 4% lower (65%) (case YL) than in the case
study analyzed.
The results obtained from the sensitivity analysis are shown
in Table 5. In case PH, it can be seen that an increase in
productivity improved the performance of wine production
from an environmental point of view, since a decrease in im-
pacts was observed in all the categories. It is noticeable that
impacts on stratospheric ozone depletion and land use were
reduced by more than 30% with respect to the real case study.
On the contrary, when the productivity was lower, an increase
in the impacts was observed in all categories, and, again,
stratospheric ozone depletion and land use were the categories
most affected, with an increase of 98%. Additionally, the
harmful effect of lower productivity is also important in other
categories, such as global warming and terrestrial acidification
(impacts approximately 60% higher).
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
Fig. 5 Characterization results obtained for the winery phase using ReCiPe Midpoint (FU, 1 wine bottle)
The results of case FO show that if no fertilizers were
applied, several improvements could be observed, being no-
ticeable the decrease in impacts in the stratospheric ozone
depletion (92%), terrestrial acidification (49%), and global
warming (46%) categories. When the amount of fertilizers
applied was three times that considered in the case study,
mineral resource scarcity was the most affected category, al-
though impacts also notably increased in water consumption,
terrestrial acidification, and stratospheric ozone depletion.
When the effect of vine growth was studied, only six of all
the analyzed categories were affected. The ozone formation
categories were the most influenced by this parameter, with
variations of 4.5 and 6.5%. Higher vine growth implies a
higher impact in these categories and the opposite for lower
growth.
An increase in grape yield produced a decrease in impacts
in all categories. Marine eutrophication, freshwater
ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, and human non-
carcinogenic toxicity were the categories most affected (more
than 20% of reduction). If the yield decreased, these same
categories were again the most affected, with increases in
the impact of between 16 and 18%.
Regarding carbon footprint values, sensitivity analysis re-
sults are not the same as those described above for the global
warming category because CO2 uptake during the growth of
vines is not taken into account to calculate CF. As can be seen
in Table 5, the greatest differences with respect to the case
1215
study were found when a variation in vineyard productivity
was contemplated. If the productivity was 50% higher (case
PH), then the CF decreased by 22%, whereas a 50% lower
productivity (case PL) produced an increase of 66% in CF
value. The non-application of fertilizers (case FO) implied
an 18% reduction in CF: for the rest of cases, CF variation
was lower than 12%.
In the sensitivity analysis, the change in environmental
impacts varied from 0 to 98%, depending on the parameter
and the category analyzed. Results showed that fertilizers and
productivity are key parameters for winemaking performance.
It should be taken into account that, although productivity is
different from year to year, such a great change as that as-
sumed here is not likely to occur in mountain vineyards.
Grape yield is also a relevant variable to be considered. On
the other hand, changes in the vine growth did not have a
substantial effect in any category.
Improvement actions
In Fig. 6, there can be seen the environmental performance of
the alternative scenarios explained in the “Alternative scenar-
ios” section in comparison with the real case. It is clear that
important improvements in the environmental performance of
winemaking can be achieved by reducing the bottle weight
(Martins et al. 2018) and/or with the reuse of bottles (Aranda
et al. 2005).
Table 4 Summary of studies in the literature focused on the study of the carbon footprint of wine worldwide
1216

Reference Type of wine (country) System boundaries Main impactful factors on CF Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq/0.75 L of
wine)

This study Red and white wine “Cangas” PDO (Spain) Cradle to winery gate Incineration in situ of pruning wastes at viticulture 2.35
phase and glass bottle production at viniculture
phase.
Chiriacò et al. (2019) Organic and high-quality wines (Italy) Cradle to winery gate Transformation of grape into wine (85%). 0.79
Ponstein et al. (2019a) Wine consumed in Finland (supplier countries - Wine bottling in glass. 1.23 (0.59–1.92)
Australia, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Spain,
South Africa, and the USA)
Ponstein et al. (2019b) Red and white wine (Germany) Cradle to winery gate Winery phase (81%) (packaging materials). 0.75–1.07
Ferrara and De Feo (2018) Review (worldwide) - Viticulture (diesel, fertilizer and pesticides use) and 1.2 (red average value)
packaging (glass bottle production). 1.2 (white average value)
Martins et al. (2018) Two red wines (Portugal) Gate to gate (considering Production of glass bottles. 1.23 (“terroir” wine)
only the winemaking 1.12 (brand wine)
and bottling steps). (without including vineyard phase)
Scrucca et al. (2018) Review (worldwide) Cradle to grave Packaging and distribution. 0.9–2.0
Arzoumanidis et al. (2017) Red wine (Italy) Cradle to retail store Agricultural and packaging phases. 1.94
Navarro et al. (2017b) Red and white wines (Spain, France) Cradle to winery gate Winery phase (glass production for bottling). 0.17–2.18
0.85 (average value)
Bonamente et al. (2016) Red wine produced by a medium-size Umbrian winery Cradle to grave Packaging and distribution. 0.98–1.16
(Italy)
Cichelli et al. (2016) Montepulciano red wine (Italy) Agricultural and Agricultural phase. 0.14–0.18
oenological phases were
considered, excluding
the waste management,
packaging, transport,
and consumption
phases.
Iannone et al. (2016) Four kinds of red and white wines made by a small From grapes transportation Refining stages, especially in the case of red wines 0.80–1.60 (red)
producer (Italy). to waste disposal. (electricity consumption of the conditioning 0.59–0.70 (white)
systems).
Rinaldi et al. (2016) A white and a red wine produced by in Umbria (Italy) Cradle to grave Raw materials and energy wares required for the wine 0.99 (white)
production (72%). 1.09 (red)
Chiusano et al. (2015) Simulated scenarios (Italy) Cradle to winery gate Vineyard phase. 0.65 and 0.67
De Marco et al. (2015) White wine (Italy) From grapes transportation Stages at controlled temperatures. 0.104
to waste disposal.
Amienyo et al. (2014) Australian red wine consumed in the UK. Cradle to grave Viticulture, transport, and packaging. 1.25
Arzoumanidis et al. (2014) Organic red wine produced by a small family-managed Cradle to market Agricultural and packaging phases. 1.55
winery (Italy)
Iannone et al. (2014) Four kinds of wines (red and white) made by a small Gate to grave Fermentation and refining stages at controlled 0.18–0.50 (red)
producer (Italy) temperature and bottling. 0.21–1.28 (white) (vinification and bottling)
Villanueva-Rey et al. White wine “Ribeiro” PDO (Spain) Agricultural phase - 0.22–0.80
(2014)
Benedetto (2013) A typical Sardinian white wine (Italy) Cradle to winery gate Production of glass bottles. 1.64
Bosco et al. (2013) Non-aged red wine (Italy). Cradle to gate - 0.53 and 0.66
Neto et al. (2013) White “Vinho verde” PDO (Portugal) Cradle to market Viticulture (fertilizers and phytosanitary products) and 2.0
(worldwide wine bottle production.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
Table 4 (continued)

Reference Type of wine (country) System boundaries Main impactful factors on CF Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq/0.75 L of
wine)

distribution was
included)
Rugani et al. (2013) Review (worldwide) - Viticulture activities (17%), packaging processes 1.09 (red)
(22%) and end-of-life (22%) 1.36 (white)
(average value)
(cradle-to-gate)
Vázquez-Rowe et al. Red and white wines (Italy, Spain, Luxembourg). Spanish and Italian wines Production of glass bottle (43–82%) 0.65–0.85 (Italian red wines)
(2013) included the agricultural 1.2 (Italian white wine)
activities of vine 2.5 (Spanish white wine) (Ribeiro)
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223

planting, viticulture, 0.7 (Luxembourg red wine)

vinification, and 0.5 (Luxembourg white wine)
bottling, whereas
Luxembourg wines only
considered the two last
stages.
Mattila et al. (2012) Review (Spain) - - 0.75–0.90
Pattara et al. (2017) An organic red wine “Montepulciano d’Abruzzo” Cradle to grave Products and activities that come from outside the 0.77–1.29
PDO (Italy). company (Scope 3) (95%) (glass bottles).
Point et al. (2012) Red and white wine in Nova Scotia (Canada) Cradle to grave Viticulture and consumer transport 1.61 (from cradle to winery door)
3.22 (from cradle to grave)
Bosco et al. (2011) Three red and one white wines produced in Maremma Cradle to grave Production of glass bottle. 0.63–1.28 (red)
rural district (Italy). 0.91 (white)
Gazulla et al. (2010) A red aged wine (Spain) Cradle to grave Viticulture and production of glass bottle. 0.9–1.0
Ardente et al. (2006) Red wine (Italy). Cradle to grave Indirect impacts (production of bottles and other 1.6
packaging products) (50%)
1217
 1218

Table 5 Results of sensitivity analysis. Values are expressed as a percentage with respect to the case study (100%). Negative percentages indicate a decrease in the impact, whereas positive percentages
indicate an increase

Parameters Productivity Fertilizers Vine growth Grapes yield

Cases Case 50% higher 50% lower Not applied Applied 30% higher 30% lower 6% higher 4% lower
study (PH) (PL) (FO) (FT) (VH) (VL) (YH) (YL)

Impact Global warming 100 − 19.6 + 58.6 − 46.0 + 23.1 − 1.6 + 1.6 − 8.2 + 6.2
categories1 Stratospheric ozone depletion 100 − 32.8 + 98.3 − 92.1 + 35.7 + 0.9 − 0.9 − 7.9 + 5.7
Ionizing radiation 100 − 3.0 + 9.0 − 4.1 + 8.2 0.0 0.0 − 0.9 + 0.6
Ozone formation, human health 100 − 7.9 + 23.7 − 4.9 + 9.9 + 4.5 − 4.5 − 2.3 + 1.7
Fine particulate matter formation 100 − 13.3 + 39.9 − 28.8 + 26.9 + 1.7 − 1.7 − 3.5 + 2.5
Ozone formation, terrestrial 100 − 10.0 + 29.9 − 4.5 + 9.1 + 6.5 − 6.5 − 2.8 + 2.0
ecosystems
Terrestrial acidification 100 − 21.1 + 63.3 − 48.7 + 39.4 + 3.2 − 3.2 − 5.2 + 3.7
Freshwater eutrophication 100 − 5.1 + 15.4 − 12.7 + 26 0.0 0.0 − 2.4 + 1.8
Marine eutrophication 100 − 4.4 + 13.2 − 12.1 + 24.8 0.0 0.0 − 20.2 + 15.5
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 100 − 4.2 + 12.6 − 9.9 + 19.9 0.0 0.0 − 1.2 + 0.9
Freshwater ecotoxicity 100 − 0.5 + 1.4 − 1.0 + 2.0 0.0 0.0 − 22.9 + 17.7
Marine ecotoxicity 100 − 0.5 + 1.5 − 1.0 + 2.1 0.0 0.0 − 22.8 + 17.6
Human carcinogenic toxicity 100 − 3.2 + 9.6 − 6.9 + 13.8 0.0 0.0 − 7.3 + 5.6
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity 100 − 0.8 + 2.3 − 1.5 + 3.0 0.0 0.0 − 22.9 + 17.6
Land use 100 − 32.8 + 98.0 − 0.5 + 0.9 0.0 0.0 − 7.9 + 5.6
Mineral resource scarcity 100 − 10.9 + 32.7 − 28.3 + 56.5 0.0 0.0 − 2.9 + 2.1
Fossil resource scarcity 100 − 10.6 + 31.9 − 3.9 + 7.8 0.0 0.0 − 2.9 + 2.1
Water consumption 100 − 9.2 + 27.6 − 21.9 + 43.7 0.0 0.0 − 2.5 + 1.9
Carbon Footprint2 100 − 21.7 + 65.5 − 17.9 + 9.4 + 11.9 − 11.9 − 8.1 + 6.0

1
ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) V1.01 method
2
Greenhouse Gas Protocol V1.02/C02 eq (kg) method
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
Fig. 6 Comparison of characterization results obtained for different scenarios using ReCiPe Midpoint (FU, 1 wine bottle): scenario 1 (real), scenario 2
(reusing 50% of glass bottles), scenario 3 (composting solid wastes), and scenario 4 (reusing 50% of glass bottles and composting solid wastes)
Asturias is the leading producer of natural cider in Spain
(Picinelli Lobo et al. 2016), and in this region, the usual prac-
tice in the cider industry is to reuse glass bottles. So, it seems
feasible to employ the same logistics used for cider to collect
and reuse 50% of the “Cangas” wine bottles. Scenario 2,
which envisages 50% of the bottles being reused, reduced,
to a greater or lesser extent, the impacts in all the categories
that were taken into consideration, excepting fossil resource
scarcity, which remained almost invariable. Cleary (2013) an-
alyzed the impacts associated with wine packaging, compar-
ing the conventional single use bottle glass with four alterna-
tive containers (i.e., lightweight single-use glass bottles, refill-
able glass bottles, polyethylene terephthalate bottles, and
aseptic cartons). They concluded that the substitution of con-
ventional glass containers with lightweight and refillable
packages allowed important reductions in environmental im-
pacts. Moreover, Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2013) found a corre-
lation between the weight of the bottle and the global
environmental impact of this production stage, so weight
reduction schemes for wine bottling would be an effective
measure to reduce the environmental impacts derived from
wine production. In this context, Ponstein et al. (2019b)
remarked that wine producers, consumers, and policy makers
should pay attention to the reuse of glass bottles, since these
authors found that the mitigation potential of the reuse of a
1219
bottle exceeded the mitigation potential of a reduction in bottle
weight by more than threefold.
Scenario 3, which included the composting of all solid
wastes, improved the impact performance of 15 of the ana-
lyzed categories, most notably in the cases of global warming,
marine eutrophication, freshwater ecotoxicity, marine
ecotoxicity, and human non-carcinogenic toxicity (the im-
pacts of these categories decreased by more than 70% in com-
parison with the real scenario). Scenario 4, which combined
scenarios 2 and 3, allowed an improvement in the impacts in
16 of the 18 categories analyzed. It should be noticed that
scenarios 2 and 3 reduced the impact by 10% in the strato-
spheric ozone depletion category. As reported by Hodson
et al. (2010) and Jeswani and Azapagic (2016), this is because
landfills emit ozone-depleting substances, and in both these
scenarios, organic wastes were composted instead of
landfilled.
With regards to carbon footprint, the comparison of scenar-
ios is shown in Fig. 7. Navarro et al. (2017b) reported that the
carbon footprint values can be reduced by almost 25% by
reducing resource consumption (diesel and phytosanitary
products in the vineyard and weight of glass bottle and elec-
tricity in the winery). In the current analysis, as can be seen,
scenario 2 only achieved a reduction of approximately 5% in
carbon footprint, whereas with scenarios 3 and 4, a decrease of
1220
Fig. 7 Comparison of carbon footprint values obtained for different
scenarios using GreenHouse Gas Protocol (FU, 1 wine bottle): scenario
1 (real), scenario 2 (reusing 50% of glass bottles), scenario 3 (composting
around 40% was reached. This notable improvement in sce-
narios 3 and 4 is mainly due to the reduction in the contribu-
tion of the vineyard phase to carbon footprint values, since
incineration of pruning wastes has been replaced by
composting. It seems clear that scenario 4 allowed the lowest
CF values to be achieved. However, this scenario was not the
best option with respect to some other categories, such as fine
particulate matter formation or terrestrial acidification.
Conclusions
The number of studies published on the environmental perfor-
mance of winemaking has notably increased in the last 5 years
since it is a topic of growing interest. In this work, a PDO
“Cangas” winery in Spain has been environmentally assessed;
both viticulture and vinification phases have been considered.
This wine has the peculiarity of being made from grapes cul-
tivated in mountain vineyards that employ traditional practices
for growing and harvesting. This kind of winemaking, which
in recent years is gaining popularity, has barely been analyzed
in the literature from an environmental perspective.
In common with other wine production systems, in the
winery analyzed in the present work, the use of fertilizers
was the main contributor to the impacts derived from the vi-
ticulture step, whereas packaging materials were responsible
for the majority of impacts derived from the vinification
phase. Nevertheless, some differences with the findings of
other reports in the literature can be observed, especially in
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
solid wastes), and scenario 4 (reusing 50% of glass bottles and
composting solid wastes). Only biogenic and fossil CO2eq have been
considered
the global warming potential category. Previous research on
other types of wines reported that one of the main contribu-
tions to greenhouse gas emissions came from the diesel
employed in field work. This is not the case in the vineyards
considered here, since all field work was performed manually
(the consumption of diesel is only due to the transport of the
workers to the vineyards). In the current study, the emissions
released by the incineration of pruning residues in situ, which
is a traditional practice, were the main source of GHG emis-
sions. Additionally, mountain vineyards are characterized by
low yields, and obviously, these lower productivities are trans-
lated into higher impacts in all categories.
The carbon footprint obtained was 1.42 kg CO2eq per kg of
grapes and 2.35 kg CO2eq per bottle of wine. The CF of
grapes was higher than the values found in the literature,
mainly due to the emissions derived from the incineration of
pruning wastes. It should be stated that, as is recommended by
the ISO 14067 standard, CO2 uptake during the growth of
vines was not taken into account when calculating the CF.
Despite using grapes with a high CF, the wine carbon foot-
print was within the range reported by other authors, since the
winery phase contribution to greenhouse gas emissions was
quite low.
Sensitivity analysis identified productivity and the use of
fertilizers as the variables which have the most notable influ-
ence on the LCA of wine production. In addition, the analysis
of projected improvement actions clearly indicated that
reusing glass bottles and composting organic wastes would
notably lessen the environmental impacts associated with the
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
production of “Cangas” PDO wine, including the CF, which
would be reduced by more than 40%.
The present study can be considered as a reference for the
environmental performance of mountain winemaking pro-
cesses. However, further research on this topic should be car-
ried out in order to widen the knowledge about the environ-
mental impact associated with this singular type of wine
worldwide.
Acknowledgments “VIDES Y VINOS ASTURIAS S.L. BODEGAS
VIDAS” winery (El Carrascal, 7, 33800 Cangas del Narcea, Asturias)
and especially Beatriz Pérez are gratefully acknowledged for her kind
collaboration in supplying the data employed in this research.
Funding information This study was carried out thanks to funding from
the Employment, Industry and Tourism Office of the Principality of
Asturias (Spain) through project IDI/2018/000127.
References
Abín R, Laca A, Laca A, Díaz M (2018) Environmental assessment of
intensive egg production: a Spanish case study. J Clean Prod 179:
160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.067
Amienyo D, Camilleri C, Azapagic A (2014) Environmental impacts of
consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. J Clean Prod 72:
110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.044
Aranda A, Zabalza I, Scarpellini S (2005) Economic and environmental
analysis of the wine bottle production in Spain by means of life cycle
assessment. IJARGE 4:178–191. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.
2005.007199
Ardente F, Beccali G, Cellura M, Marvuglia A (2006) POEMS: A Case
Study of an Italian Wine-Producing Firm. Environmental
Management 38(3):350–364
Arzoumanidis I, Raggi A, Petti L (2014) Considerations When Applying
Simplified LCA Approaches in the Wine Sector. Sustainability 6(8):
5018–5028
Arzoumanidis I, Salomone R, Petti L, Mondello G, Raggi A (2017) Is
there a simplified LCA tool suitable for the agri-food industry? An
assessment of selected tools. J Clean Prod 149:406–425. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.059
Asdrubali F, Presciutti A, Scrucca F (2013) Development of a greenhouse
gas accounting GIS-based tool to support local policy making-
application to an Italian municipality. Energ Policy 61:587–594.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.116
Benedetto G (2013) The environmental impact of a Sardinian wine by
partial life cycle assessment. Wine Econ Policy 2:33–41. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wep.2013.05.003
Bonamente E, Scrucca F, Rinaldi S, Merico MC, Asdrubali F, Lamastra L
(2016) Environmental impact of an Italian wine bottle: carbon and
water footprint assessment. Sci Total Environ 560-561:274–283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.026
Borsato E, Giubilato E, Zabeo A, Lamastra L, Criscione P, Tarolli P,
Marinello F, Pizzol L (2019) Comparison of water-focused life cycle
assessment and water footprint assessment: the case of an Italian
wine. Sci Total Environ 666:1220–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.02.331
Bosco S, Di Bene C, Galli M, Remorini D, Massai R, Bonari E (2011)
Greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural phase of wine produc-
tion in the Maremma rural district in Tuscany, Italy. IJA 6:93–100.
https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2011.e15
1221
Bosco S, Di Bene C, Galli M, Remorini D, Massa R, Bonari E (2013) Soil
organic matter accounting in the carbon footprint analysis of the
wine chain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:973–989. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11367-013-0567-3
Canellada F, Laca A, Laca A, Díaz M (2018) Environmental impact of
cheese production: a case study of a small-scale factory in southern
Europe and global overview of carbon footprint. Sci Total Environ
635:167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.045
Casolani N, Pattara C, Liberatore L (2016) Water and carbon footprint
perspective in Italian durum wheat production. Land Use Policy 58:
394–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.014
CERVIM (Centre for Research, Environmental Sustainability and
Advancement of Mountain Viticulture): http://www.cervim.org/.
Accessed 10 Oct 2019
Chiriacò MV, Belli C, Chiti T, Trotta C, Sabbatini S (2019) The potential
carbon neutrality of sustainable viticulture showed through a com-
prehensive assessment of the greenhouse gas (GHG) budget of wine
production. J Clean Prod 225:435–450
Chiusano L, Cerutti AK, Cravero MC, Bruun S, Gerbi V (2015) An
industrial ecology approach to solve wine surpluses problem: the
case study of an Italian winery. J Clean Prod 91:56–63. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.002
Christ KL, Burritt RL (2013) Critical environmental concerns in wine
production: an integrative review. J Clean Prod 53:232–242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.192
Cichelli A, Pattara C, Petrella A (2016) Sustainability in mountain viti-
culture. The case of the valle Peligna. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8:
65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.009
Cleary J (2013) Life cycle assessments of wine and spirit packaging at the
product and the municipal scale: a Toronto, Canada case study. J
Clean Prod 44:143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.
009
Comandaru IM, Bârjoveanu G, Peiu N, Ene SA, Teodosiu C (2012) Life
cycle assessment of wine: focus on water use impact assessment.
Environ Eng Manage J 11:533–543. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.
2012.066
De Marco I, Iannone R, Miranda S, Riemma S (2015) Reduction of
carbon dioxide emissions during the vinification stages of a white
wine produced in Italy. Chem Eng Trans 43:2173–2178. https://doi.
org/10.3303/CET1543363
Doring J, Frisch M, Tittmann S, Stoll M, Kauer R (2015) Growth, yield
and fruit quality of grapevines under organic and biodynamic man-
agement. PLoS One 10:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0138445
EEA (European Environment Agency): EMEP/CORINAIR Emission
Inventory Guidebook - 2007: https://www.eea.europa.eu/.
Accessed 29 Mar 2019
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2009):
Agribusiness Handbook vol. 5. Grapes / Wine
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2018):
http://www.fao.org/. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
Ferrara C, De Feo G (2018) Life cycle assessment application to the wine
sector: a critical review. Sustainability 10:395. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su10020395
Ferrari AM, Pini M, Sassi D, Zerazion E, Neri P (2018) Effects of grape
quality on the environmental profile of an Italian vineyard for
Lambrusco red wine production. J Clean Prod 172:3760–3769.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.241
Ferrer J, Mujica D, Páez G (1993) Composting from grape pomace. Rev
Téc Ing Univ Zulia 16:191–198 (in Spanish)
Fusi A, Guidetti R, Benedetto G (2014) Delving into the environmental
aspect of a Sardinian white wine: from partial to total life cycle
assessment. Sci Total Environ 472:989–1000. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.148
Gazulla C, Raugei M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2010) Taking a life cycle look
at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks? Int J
1222
Life Cycle Assess 15:330–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-
010-0173-6
GHGP (2020) Greenhouse Gas Protocol: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/.
Accessed 12 June 2020
Herath I, Green S, Horne D, Singh R, McLaren S, Clothier B (2013)
Water footprinting of agricultural products: evaluation of different
protocols using a case study of New Zealand wine. J Clean Prod 44:
159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.008
Hodson EL, Martin D, Prinn RG (2010) The municipal solid waste land-
fill as a source of ozone-depleting substances in the United States
and United Kingdom. Atmos Chem Phys 10:1899–1910. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-10-1899-2010
Iannone R, Miranda S, Riemma S, De Marco I (2014) Life cycle assess-
ment of red and white wines production in southern Italy. Chem Eng
Trans 39:595–600 17th Conference on Process Integration,
Modelling and Optimisation for Energy Saving and Pollution
Reduction, PRES 2014; Prague; Czech Republic
Iannone R, Miranda S, Riemma S, De Marco I (2016) Improving envi-
ronmental performances in wine production by a life cycle assess-
ment analysis. J Clean Prod 111:172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.04.006
INIA (The National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and
Technology in Spain) Boletín INIA n° 277 (in Spanish) (2013)
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006):
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/. Accessed 11
Oct 2018
Jeswani HK, Azapagic A (2016) Assessing the environmental sustain-
ability of energy recovery from municipal solid waste in the UK.
Waste Manag 50:346–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.
02.010
Jiménez E, Martínez E, Blanco J, Pérez M, Graciano C (2014)
Methodological approach towards sustainability by integration of
environmental impact in production system models through life cy-
cle analysis: application to the Rioja wine sector. Simulation 90:
143–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549712464409
Jourdaine M, Loubet P, Trebucq S, Sonnemann G (2020) A detailed
quantitative comparison of the life cycle assessment of bottled wines
using an original harmonization procedure. J Clean Prod:119472.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119472
Jradi S, Chameeva TB, Delhomme B, Jaegler A (2018) Tracking carbon
footprint in French vineyards: a DEA performance assessment. J
Clean Prod 192:43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.
216
Junta of Andalucía (2009) Ministry of Rural Environment and Fishing of
the Administration of the Andalucía: https://www.juntadeandalucia.
es/temas/medio-ambiente/emisiones/emisiones-atmosfera.html (in
Spanish). Accessed 21 June 2019
Kutnar A, Hill C (2016) End of life scenarios and the carbon footprint of
wood cladding. In: Muthu SS (ed) The Carbon Footprint Handbook.
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 85–100
Marras S, Masia S, Duce P, Spano S, Sirca C (2015) Carbon footprint
assessment on a mature vineyard. Agric For Meteorol 214-215:350–
356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.270
Martins AA, Araújo AR, Graça A, Caetano ND, Mata TM (2018)
Towards sustainable wine: comparison of two Portuguese wines. J
Clean Prod 183:662–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.
057
Mattila T, Leskinen P, Soimakallio S, Sironen S (2012) Uncertainty in
environmentally conscious decision making: beer or wine? Int J Life
Cycle Assess 17:696–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-
0413-z
Mendívil M, Muñoz P, Morales M, Juárez C, García-Escudero E (2013)
Chemical characterization of pruned vine shoots from La Rioja
(Spain) for obtaining solid bio-fuels. J Renew Sustain Energy 5:
033113. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4808043
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
Meneses M, Torres CM, Castells F (2016) Sensitivity analysis in a life
cycle assessment of an aged red wine production from Catalonia,
Spain. Sci Total Environ 562:571–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.04.083
MITECO (2019) Ministry for the Ecological Transition of Spain: https://
www.miteco.gob.es/es/ (in Spanish). Accessed 21 June 2019
Moreno P (2011) Characterization of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)
phytogenetic resources of Asturias. Thesis (in Spanish)
Navarro A, Puig R, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2017a) Product vs corporate
carbon footprint: some methodological issues. A case study and
review on the wine sector. Sci Total Environ 581-582:722–733.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.190
Navarro A, Puig R, Kılıç E, Penavayre S, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2017b)
Eco-innovation and benchmarking of carbon footprint data for
vineyards and wineries in Spain and France. J Clean Prod 142:
1661–1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.124
Neto B, Dias AC, Machado M (2013) Life cycle assessment of the supply
chain of a Portuguese wine: from viticulture to distribution. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 18:590–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-
0518-4
OIV (International Organisation of Vine and Wine): http://www.oiv.int/.
Accessed 16 Mar 2019
Parpinello GP, Ricci A, Rombolà AD, Nigro G, Versari A (2019)
Comparison of Sangiovese wines obtained from stabilized organic
and biodynamic vineyard management systems. Food Chem 283:
499–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.01.073
Pattara C, Raggi A, Cichelli A (2012) Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon
Footprint in the Wine Supply-Chain. Environmental Management
49(6):1247–1258
Peña N, Antón A, Kamilaris A, Fantke P (2018) Modeling ecotoxicity
impacts in vineyard production: addressing spatial differentiation for
copper fungicides. Sci Total Environ 616-617:796–804. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.243
Picinelli Lobo A, Antón-Diaz MJ, Mangas Alonso JJ, Suarez Valles B
(2016) Characterization of Spanish ciders by means of chemical and
olfactometric profiles and chemometrics. Food Chem 213:505–513.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.06.063
Pizzigallo ACI, Granai C, Borsa S (2008) The joint use of LCA and
emergy evaluation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. J
Environ Manag 86:396–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2006.04.020
Point E, Tyedmers P, Naugler C (2012) Life cycle environmental impacts
of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J
Clean Prod 27:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.035
Ponstein HJ, Ghinoi S, Steiner B (2019a) How to increase sustainability
in the Finnish wine supply chain? Insights from a country of origin
based greenhouse gas emissions analysis. J Clean Prod 226:768–
780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.088
Ponstein HJ, Meyer-Aurich A, Prochnow A (2019b) Greenhouse gas
emissions and mitigation options for German wine production. J
Clean Prod 212:800–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
11.206
PROWEIN (2019): https://www.prowein.com/. Accessed 1 Oct 2019
Quinteiro P, Dias AC, Pina L, Neto B, Ridoutt BG, Arroja L (2014)
Addressing the freshwater use of a Portuguese wine (“vinho verde”)
using different LCA methods. J Clean Prod 68:46–55. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.017
Recchia L, Sarri D, Rimediotti M, Boncinelli P, Cini E, Vieri M (2018)
Towards the environmental sustainability assessment for the viticul-
ture. J Agric Eng 586:19–28. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2018.586
Reşitoğlu İA, Altinişik K, Keskin A (2015) The pollutant emissions from
diesel-engine vehicles and exhaust after treatment systems. Clean
Techn Environ Policy 17:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-
014-0793-9
Rinaldi S, Bonamente E, Scrucca F, Merico MC, Asdrubali F, Cotana F
(2016) Water and carbon footprint of wine: methodology review and
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:1204–1223
application to a case study. Sustainability 8:621. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su8070621
Rugani B, Vázquez-Rowe I, Benedetto G, Benetto E (2013) A compre-
hensive review of carbon footprint analysis as an extended environ-
mental indicator in the wine sector. J Clean Prod 54:61–77. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.036
Sacchelli S, Fabbrizzi S, Bertocci M, Marone E, Menghini S, Bernetti I
(2017) A mix-method model for adaptation to climate change in the
agricultural sector: a case study for Italian wine farms. J Clean Prod
166:891–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.095
Scrucca F, Bonamente E, Rinaldi S (2018) Carbon footprint in the wine
industry in environmental carbon footprints: industrial case studies.
In: Muthu SS (ed) The Carbon Footprint Handbook. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 161–196
Treu H, Nordborg M, Cederberg C, Heuer T, Claupein E, Hoffmann H,
Berndes G (2017) Carbon footprints and land use of conventional
and organic diets in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production 161:
127–142
UN (United Nations) (2019): https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/ Accessed 16 Mar
2019
UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation. Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation.
1223
Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. United
Nations, January 2017
Vázquez-Rowe I, Rugani B, Benetto B (2013) Tapping carbon footprint
variations in the European wine sector. J Clean Prod 43:146–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.036
Villanueva-Rey P, Vázquez-Rowe I, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2014)
Comparative life cycle assessment in the wine sector: biodynamic
vs. conventional viticulture activities in NW Spain. J Clean Prod 65:
330–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.026
Villanueva-Rey P, Vázquez-Rowe I, Otero M, Moreira MT, Feijoo G
(2015) Accounting for time-dependent changes in GHG emissions
in the Ribeiro appellation (NW Spain): are land use changes an
important driver? Environ Sci Policy 51:215–227. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.001
Villanueva-Rey P, Quinteiro P, Vázquez-Rowe I, Rafael S, Arroja L,
Moreira MT, Feijoo G, Dias AC (2018) Assessing water footprint
in a wine appellation: A case study for Ribeiro in Galicia, Spain.
Journal of Cleaner Production 172:2097–2107
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.