The U.S. consumer phosphorus footprint: where do nitrogen and phosphorus diverge?

Phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) are essential nutrients for food production but their excess use in agriculture can have major social costs, particularly related to water quality degradation. Nutrient footprint approaches estimate N and P release to the environment through food production and waste management and enable linking these emissions to particular consumption patterns. Following an established method for quantifying a consumer-oriented N footprint for the United States (U.S.), we calculate an analogous P footprint and assess the N:P ratio across different stages of food production and consumption. Circa 2012, the average consumer's P footprint was 4.4 kg P capita-1 yr-1 compared to 22.4 kg N capita-1 yr-1 for the food portion of the N footprint. Animal products have the largest contribution to both footprints, comprising >70% of the average per capita N and P footprints. The N:P ratio of environmental release based on virtual nutrient factors (kilograms N or P per kilogram of food consumed) varies considerably across food groups and stages. The overall N:P ratio of the footprints was lower (5.2 by mass) than for that of U.S. food consumption (8.6), reinforcing our finding that P is managed less efficiently than N in food production systems but more efficiently removed from wastewater. While strategies like reducing meat consumption will effectively reduce both N and P footprints by decreasing overall synthetic fertilizer nutrient demands, consideration of how food production and waste treatment differentially affect N and P releases to the environment can also inform eutrophication management.

Defining System Boundaries of an Institution Nitrogen Footprint.

A nitrogen (N) footprint quantifies the amount of reactive nitrogen released to the environment and can be measured at different scales. The N footprint of a university includes activities and consumption within its geographic boundaries as well as activities that support the institution. Determining system bounds of an N footprint depends on the institution's mission and provides a common baseline for comparison. A comparison of three scopes of the N footprint, which describe how emissions are directly related to an institution's activities, was conducted for seven institutions. Scopes follow the established definition for the carbon footprint. In this article, the authors propose a new system bounds definition (core campus versus adjunct). Two case studies were explored: how the N footprint of Dickinson College changed with air travel, and how the N footprint of the Marine Biological Laboratory changed with scientific research. Of the three scopes, scope 3 was consistently the largest proportion of the N footprint for all seven institutions. The core campus activities of Dickinson College made up 99 percent of its N footprint, with air travel making up the remaining 1 percent. The Marine Biological Laboratory's core campus activities made up 51 percent of its N footprint and the scientific research made up the remaining 49 percent. Institutions should define system bounds based on their mission and stay consistent with their boundaries following the baseline year. The core campus footprint could be used to compare institution footprints using consistent system bounds. How institutions define their boundaries will impact the recorded amount of nitrogen as well as how the institution will set reduction strategies.

The Nitrogen Footprint Tool Network: A Multi-Institution Program To Reduce Nitrogen Pollution.

Anthropogenic sources of reactive nitrogen have local and global impacts on air and water quality and detrimental effects on human and ecosystem health. This article uses the Nitrogen Footprint Tool (NFT) to determine the amount of nitrogen (N) released as a result of institutional consumption. The sectors accounted for include food (consumption and upstream production), energy, transportation, fertilizer, research animals, and agricultural research. The NFT is then used for scenario analysis to manage and track reductions, which are driven by the consumption behaviors of both the institution itself and its constituent individuals. In this article, the first seven completed institution nitrogen footprint results are presented. The Nitrogen Footprint Tool Network aims to develop footprints for many institutions to encourage widespread upper-level management strategies that will create significant reductions in reactive nitrogen released to the environment. Energy use and food purchases are the two largest sectors contributing to institution nitrogen footprints. Ongoing efforts by institutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also help to reduce the nitrogen footprint, but the impact of food production on nitrogen pollution has not been directly addressed by the higher education sustainability community. The Nitrogen Footprint Tool Network found that institutions could reduce their nitrogen footprints by optimizing food purchasing to reduce consumption of animal products and minimize food waste, as well as by reducing dependence on fossil fuels for energy.

An Integrated Tool for Calculating and Reducing Institution Carbon and Nitrogen Footprints.

The development of nitrogen footprint tools has allowed a range of entities to calculate and reduce their contribution to nitrogen pollution, but these tools represent just one aspect of environmental pollution. For example, institutions have been calculating their carbon footprints to track and manage their greenhouse gas emissions for over a decade. This article introduces an integrated tool that institutions can use to calculate, track, and manage their nitrogen and carbon footprints together. It presents the methodology for the combined tool, describes several metrics for comparing institution nitrogen and carbon footprint results, and discusses management strategies that reduce both the nitrogen and carbon footprints. The data requirements for the two tools overlap substantially, although integrating the two tools does necessitate the calculation of the carbon footprint of food. Comparison results for five institutions suggest that the institution nitrogen and carbon footprints correlate strongly, especially in the utilities and food sectors. Scenario analyses indicate benefits to both footprints from a range of utilities and food footprint reduction strategies. Integrating these two footprints into a single tool will account for a broader range of environmental impacts, reduce data entry and analysis, and promote integrated management of institutional sustainability.

Comparing Institution Nitrogen Footprints: Metrics for Assessing and Tracking Environmental Impact.

When multiple institutions with strong sustainability initiatives use a new environmental impact assessment tool, there is an impulse to compare. The first seven institutions to calculate nitrogen footprints using the Nitrogen Footprint Tool have worked collaboratively to improve calculation methods, share resources, and suggest methods for reducing their footprints. This article compares those seven institutions' results to reveal the common and unique drivers of institution nitrogen footprints. The footprints were compared by scope and sector, and the results were normalized by multiple factors (e.g., population, amount of food served). The comparisons found many consistencies across the footprints, including the large contribution of food. The comparisons identified metrics that could be used to track progress, such as an overall indicator for the nitrogen sustainability of food purchases. The comparisons also pointed to differences in system bounds of the calculations, which are important to standardize when comparing across institutions. The footprints were influenced by factors both within and outside of the institutions' ability to control, such as size, location, population, and campus use. However, these comparisons also point to a pathway forward for standardizing nitrogen footprint tool calculations, identifying metrics that can be used to track progress, and determining a sustainable institution nitrogen footprint.

Assessing the Social and Environmental Costs of Institution Nitrogen Footprints.

This article estimates the damage costs associated with the institutional nitrogen (N) footprint and explores how this information could be used to create more sustainable institutions. Potential damages associated with the release of nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia (NH3), and nitrous oxide (N2O) to air and release of nitrogen to water were estimated using existing values and a cost per unit of nitrogen approach. These damage cost values were then applied to two universities. Annual potential damage costs to human health, agriculture, and natural ecosystems associated with the N footprint of institutions were $11.0 million (2014) at the University of Virginia (UVA) and $3.04 million at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). Costs associated with the release of nitrogen oxides to human health, in particular the use of coal-derived energy, were the largest component of damage at UVA. At UNH the energy N footprint is much lower because of a landfill cogeneration source, and thus the majority of damages were associated with food production. Annual damages associated with release of nitrogen from food production were very similar at the two universities ($1.80 million vs. $1.66 million at UVA and UNH, respectively). These damages also have implications for the extent and scale at which the damages are felt. For example, impacts to human health from energy and transportation are generally larger near the power plants and roads, while impacts from food production can be distant from the campus. Making this information available to institutions and communities can improve their understanding of the damages associated with the different nitrogen forms and sources, and inform decisions about nitrogen reduction strategies.

Nitrogen footprints: Regional realities and options to reduce nitrogen loss to the environment.

Nitrogen (N) management presents a sustainability dilemma: N is strongly linked to energy and food production, but excess reactive N causes environmental pollution. The N footprint is an indicator that quantifies reactive N losses to the environment from consumption and production of food and the use of energy. The average per capita N footprint (calculated using the N-Calculator methodology) of ten countries varies from 15 to 47 kg N capita-1 year-1. The major cause of the difference is the protein consumption rates and food production N losses. The food sector dominates all countries' N footprints. Global connections via trade significantly affect the N footprint in countries that rely on imported foods and feeds. The authors present N footprint reduction strategies (e.g., improve N use efficiency, increase N recycling, reduce food waste, shift dietary choices) and identify knowledge gaps (e.g., the N footprint from nonfood goods and soil N process).

Beef and coal are key drivers of Australia's high nitrogen footprint.

Anthropogenic release of reactive nitrogen (Nr; all species of N except N2) to the global nitrogen (N) cycle is substantial and it negatively affects human and ecosystem health. A novel metric, the N footprint, provides a consumer-based perspective for Nr use efficiency and connects lifestyle choices with Nr losses. Here we report the first full-scale assessment of the anthropogenic Nr loss by Australians. Despite its 'clean and green' image, Australia has the largest N footprint (47 kg N cap-1 yr-1) both in food and energy sectors among all countries that have used the N-Calculator model. About 69% of the Australia's N footprint is attributed to food consumption and the associated food production, with the rest from energy consumption. Beef consumption and production is the major contributor of the high food N footprint, while the heavy dependence on coal for electricity explains the large energy N footprint. Our study demonstrates opportunities for managing Nr loss and lifestyle choices to reduce the N footprint.

The environmental cost of subsistence: Optimizing diets to minimize footprints.

The question of how to minimize monetary cost while meeting basic nutrient requirements (a subsistence diet) was posed by George Stigler in 1945. The problem, known as Stigler's diet problem, was famously solved using the simplex algorithm. Today, we are not only concerned with the monetary cost of food, but also the environmental cost. Efforts to quantify environmental impacts led to the development of footprint (FP) indicators. The environmental footprints of food production span multiple dimensions, including greenhouse gas emissions (carbon footprint), nitrogen release (nitrogen footprint), water use (blue and green water footprint) and land use (land footprint), and a diet minimizing one of these impacts could result in higher impacts in another dimension. In this study based on nutritional and population data for the United States, we identify diets that minimize each of these four footprints subject to nutrient constraints. We then calculate tradeoffs by taking the composition of each footprint's minimum diet and calculating the other three footprints. We find that diets for the minimized footprints tend to be similar for the four footprints, suggesting there are generally synergies, rather than tradeoffs, among low footprint diets. Plant-based food and seafood (fish and other aquatic foods) commonly appear in minimized diets and tend to most efficiently supply macronutrients and micronutrients, respectively. Livestock products rarely appear in minimized diets, suggesting these foods tend to be less efficient from an environmental perspective, even when nutrient content is considered. The results' emphasis on seafood is complicated by the environmental impacts of aquaculture versus capture fisheries, increasing in aquaculture, and shifting compositions of aquaculture feeds. While this analysis does not make specific diet recommendations, our approach demonstrates potential environmental synergies of plant- and seafood-based diets. As a result, this study provides a useful tool for decision-makers in linking human nutrition and environmental impacts.

Personal nitrogen footprint tool for the United Kingdom.

The global nitrogen (N) cycle has been transformed by human use of reactive N as a consequence of increased demand for food and energy. Given the considerable impact of humans on the N cycle, it is essential that we raise awareness amongst the public and policy makers as this is the first step in providing individuals and governments the opportunity to reduce their impact on the N cycle and reduce the environmental and health consequences of N pollution. Here we describe an N footprint tool for the UK developed as part of the N-PRINT program. The current per capita N footprint in the UK is 27.1 kg N per capita per year with food production constituting the largest proportion of the footprint (18.0 kg N per capita per year). Calculating an N footprint for 1971 (26.0 kg N per capita per year) demonstrates that per capita N footprints have increased slightly. The average UK footprint is smaller than that found in the USA but is higher than the Netherlands and Germany. Scenario analysis demonstrates that reducing food protein consumption to the levels recommended by the FAO and World Health Organization reduces the overall N footprint by 33%. Consuming a vegetarian diet and consuming only sustainable food both decreased the N footprint by 15% but changes in energy use have a much smaller impact.

Nitrogen footprint in China: food, energy, and nonfood goods.

The nitrogen (N) footprint is a novel approach to quantify losses to the environment of reactive N (Nr; all species of N except N2) derived from human activities. However, current N footprint models are difficult to apply to new countries due to the large data requirement, and sources of Nr included in calculating the N footprint are often incomplete. In this study, we comprehensively quantified the N footprint in China with an N mass balance approach. Results show that the per capita N footprint in China increased 68% between 1980 and 2008, from 19 to 32 kg N yr(-1). The Nr loss from the production and consumption of food was the largest component of the N footprint (70%) while energy and nonfood products made up the remainder in approximately equal portion in 2008. In contrast, in 1980, the food-related N footprint accounted for 86% of the overall N footprint, followed by nonfood products (8%) and energy (6%). The findings and methods of this study are generally comparable to that of the consumer-based analysis of the N-Calculator. This work provides policy makers quantitative information about the sources of China's N footprint and demonstrates the significant challenges in reducing Nr loss to the environment.

Consequences of human modification of the global nitrogen cycle.

The demand for more food is increasing fertilizer and land use, and the demand for more energy is increasing fossil fuel combustion, leading to enhanced losses of reactive nitrogen (Nr) to the environment. Many thresholds for human and ecosystem health have been exceeded owing to Nr pollution, including those for drinking water (nitrates), air quality (smog, particulate matter, ground-level ozone), freshwater eutrophication, biodiversity loss, stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change and coastal ecosystems (dead zones). Each of these environmental effects can be magnified by the 'nitrogen cascade': a single atom of Nr can trigger a cascade of negative environmental impacts in sequence. Here, we provide an overview of the impact of Nr on the environment and human health, including an assessment of the magnitude of different environmental problems, and the relative importance of Nr as a contributor to each problem. In some cases, Nr loss to the environment is the key driver of effects (e.g. terrestrial and coastal eutrophication, nitrous oxide emissions), whereas in some other situations nitrogen represents a key contributor exacerbating a wider problem (e.g. freshwater pollution, biodiversity loss). In this way, the central role of nitrogen can remain hidden, even though it actually underpins many trans-boundary pollution problems.

A chronology of human understanding of the nitrogen cycle.

Nitrogen over the ages! It was discovered in the eighteenth century. The following century, its importance in agriculture was documented and the basic components of its cycle were elucidated. In the twentieth century, a process to provide an inexhaustible supply of reactive N (Nr; all N species except N2) for agricultural, industrial and military uses was invented. This discovery and the extensive burning of fossil fuels meant that by the beginning of the twenty-first century, anthropogenic sources of newly created Nr were two to three times that of natural terrestrial sources. This caused a fundamental change in the nitrogen cycle; for the first time, there was the potential for enough food to sustain growing populations and changing dietary patterns. However, most Nr created by humans is lost to the environment, resulting in a cascade of negative earth systems impacts-including enhanced acid rain, smog, eutrophication, greenhouse effect and stratospheric ozone depletion, with associated impacts on human and ecosystem health. The impacts continue and will be magnified, as Nr is lost to the environment at an even greater rate. Thus, the challenge for the current century is how to optimize the uses of N while minimizing the negative impacts.