Demand-Side Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation in Agri-food Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Protocol for Evidence and Gap Map of Sustainable Dietary Shifts, Food Loss and Waste Reduction, and Food-Mileage Interventions
Kevin Ouma Ojiambo, Shalu Jain, Liping Guo, Michelle Alison North, Carrel Fokou, Sarah Young, Howard White
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
低・中所得国（LMIC）の農食システムにおける需要側GHG削減介入（持続的食習慣の転換、フードロス削減、フードマイル削減）に関する証拠とギャップのマップ作成プロトコル。既存研究が高所得国・欧州に偏り、LMICや費用対効果の知見が乏しいことを指摘する。本論文は結果ではなく手法設計を示す段階にとどまる。
English
A protocol for an evidence and gap map of demand-side GHG mitigation interventions in LMIC agri-food systems, covering sustainable dietary shifts, food loss and waste reduction, and food-mileage measures. It highlights that existing syntheses are dominated by high-income, largely European settings, leaving LMIC evidence and cost-effectiveness poorly characterised. No empirical findings are reported yet.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本のGX文脈ではScope 3のカテゴリ1（購入品）や食品ロス削減、食品企業のサプライチェーン排出管理に関連する。ただしLMIC対象の証拠整理プロトコルであり、日本企業への直接的示唆は限定的。
In the global GX context
Speaks to the global disclosure agenda by targeting Scope 3 Category 1 and food-loss dimensions of agri-food supply chains, and by flagging the geographic evidence gap that undermines credible LMIC transition claims under ISSB/CSRD supply-chain reporting.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:需要側緩和の証拠が高所得国に偏る地理的バイアスを定量化する枠組みとして参照できる。
🏢実務担当者:食品・小売のScope 3カテゴリ1や食品ロス目標設定の際、LMICサプライヤー側の介入根拠が薄い点を認識できる。
🏛政策担当者:LMICの需要側緩和策の政策立案・資金配分において、証拠の空白を埋める優先研究領域の特定に資する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
BackgroundAgri-food systems are a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognises demand-side measures, particularly sustainable dietary shifts and food loss and waste reduction, as important mitigation pathways, with food-mileage reduction a complementary strategy. Yet existing syntheses draw overwhelmingly on high-income settings: in a recent meta-analysis of 139 demand-side studies, European countries alone accounted for 75% of food-consumption studies. Food-mileage interventions and cost-effectiveness outcomes are rarely mapped. Evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where most future growth in livestock-product consumption is projected, remains poorly characterised. This evidence and gap map (EGM) therefore aims to characterise the nature and distribution of evidence on demand-side GHG mitigation interventions in LMIC agri-food systems.MethodsAgricultural systems around the world are being impacted by climate stressors and hazards. These shocks are felt disproportionately by agricultural producers in LMICs due to existing socio-economic vulnerabilities. In this context, climate adaptation interventions seek to catalyze adaptation processes and outcomes to help producers manage impacts and reduce climate-induced risks to their livelihoods. These interventions and their effectiveness are assessed through a variety of ways, including output and outcomes indicators as a part of M&E systems, qualitative measures of coping capacity, and quantitative resilience indices. Collectively, these concepts represent different approaches to measuring adaptation and constitute the primary focus of this review.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24128352first seen 2026-11-13 05:24:15 · last seen 2026-11-14 05:22:51
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。