SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akademik Gıda / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Water Footprint, Land Use and Energy Use for Menus Served to Children in a Nursery School: A Case Study

Çocuklara Sunulan Menülerin Sera Gazı Emisyonu, Su Ayak İzi, Arazi ve Enerji Kullanımı Açısından Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Kreş Örneği

Kübra Aldırmaz(İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Çocuk Gelişimi Bölümü)0000-0002-7403-5324
Hatice Merve Bayram(İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Beslenme ve Diyetetik Bölümü)0000-0002-7073-2907
Arda Öztürkcan(İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Beslenme ve Diyetetik Bölümü)0000-0001-7982-6988
Pages
45–52
Publication Date
2026-07-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, when planning menus, it is important that they prioritize children’s nutritional requirements while being seasonally appropriate and balanced in terms of plant- and animal-source foods in line with sustainability principles.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Awareness of “sustainable nutrition” in preschool children should initially be promoted through menus provided in nursery schools.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The GHGE values of menus were the highest in summer (2.59±0.22 kg CO2 eq/kg), the lowest in autumn (1.83±0.18 kg CO2 eq/kg); water footprint were the highest in summer (1544.68±110.30 L/kg), and the lowest in winter (1141.13±65.12 L/kg).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, when planning menus, it is important that they prioritize children’s nutritional requirements while being seasonally appropriate and balanced in terms of plant- and animal-source foods in line with sustainability principles.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilirlik · Sürdürülebilir beslenme · Sera gazı emisyonu

Abstract

Awareness of “sustainable nutrition” in preschool children should initially be promoted through menus provided in nursery schools. The aim of this study was to determine the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), water footprint, land use and energy use values of seasonal menus served in a private nursery school. The GHGE, land use and energy use values were calculated using data from studies based on life cycle assessment while water footprint values were determined by studies based on the method developed by the Water Footprint Network. The GHGE values of menus were the highest in summer (2.59±0.22 kg CO2 eq/kg), the lowest in autumn (1.83±0.18 kg CO2 eq/kg); water footprint were the highest in summer (1544.68±110.30 L/kg), and the lowest in winter (1141.13±65.12 L/kg). The energy and protein values of foods showed strong positive correlations with GHGE, water footprint, land use and energy use. A higher proportion of animal-source foods in menus was associated with higher GHGE, water footprint, land use and energy use values. On the other hand, animal-source foods are indispensable components of childhood nutrition owing to their high biological value protein and micronutrient contents. Therefore, when planning menus, it is important that they prioritize children’s nutritional requirements while being seasonally appropriate and balanced in terms of plant- and animal-source foods in line with sustainability principles.

Özet

Okul öncesi dönemde çocuklarda “sürdürülebilir beslenme” bilincini oluşturmak başlangıçta kreşlerde sunulan örneklerle sağlanabilir. Çalışmanın amacı, özel bir kreşte sunulan menülerinin sera gazı emisyonu (SGE), su ayak izi, arazi ve enerji kullanım değerlerinin mevsimlere göre belirlenmesidir. Özel bir kreşte sunulan menülerin SGE, arazi ve enerji kullanımı yaşam döngüsü değerlendirmesi kullanılan; su ayak izi ise Su Ayak İzi Ağı tarafından geliştirilen yöntemi kullanılan çalışmalardan yararlanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Menülerin SGE değerleri en yüksek yaz (2,59±0,22 kg CO2 eş değeri/kg), en düşük sonbahar mevsiminde (1,83±0,18 kg CO2 eşdeğeri/kg); su ayak izi değerleri ise en yüksek yaz (1544,68±110,30 L/kg), en düşük kış mevsiminde (1141,13±65,12 L/kg) bulunmuştur. Besinlerin enerji ve protein değerleri, SGE, su ayak izi, arazi ve enerji kullanımı ile pozitif ve güçlü bir ilişki göstermiştir. Hayvansal besinlerin menüde fazla yer alması SGE, su ayak izi ile arazi ve enerji kullanım değerlerinde artışa yol açmıştır. Bununla birlikte hayvansal besinler, yüksek biyolojik değerli protein ve büyüme için elzem mikro besin ögesi içerikleri nedeniyle çocukluk çağı beslenmesinin vazgeçilmez bileşenleridir. Bu nedenle menüler planlanırken çocukların gereksinimleri öncelenerek mevsimine uygun, bitkisel ve hayvansal besinler açısından dengeli ve sürdürülebilirlik ilkeleriyle uyumlu olması önem arz etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aldırmaz, K., Bayram, H. M., Öztürkcan, A. (2026). Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Water Footprint, Land Use and Energy Use for Menus Served to Children in a Nursery School: A Case Study. Akademik Gıda, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.24323/akademik-gida.2004226

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Pekcan, A.G. (2017). Beslenme rehberleri ve su ayakizi. Beslenme ve Diyet Dergisi, 45(2), 95-98.
  2. Başkale, H., Bahar, Z., Başer, G., Ari, M. (2009). Use of Piaget's theory in preschool nutrition education. Revista de Nutrição, 22(6), 905-917.
  3. Murimi, M.W., Moyeda-Carabaza, A.F., Nguyen, B., Saha, S., Amin, R., Njike, V. (2018). Factors that contribute to effective nutrition education interventions in children: a systematic review. Nutrition Reviews, 76(8), 553-580.
  4. Özbaş, S., Uskun, E., Küçüksoku, B., Hocaoğlu, Ü., Akalın, S., Özbaş, H. (2018). Eğitilebilir zihinsel engelli çocukların besin tüketim kayıtlarına göre beslenme durumları. Akademik Gıda, 16(2), 192-196.
  5. Ersoy, S., Özbaş, S. (2020). Çocukların gıda tüketimi üzerine televizyon reklamlarının etkisi. Akademik Gıda, 18(2), 172-179.
  6. World Health Organization (WHO) (2021). Obesity and overweight. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2023).
  7. Apperley, L.J., Blackburn, J., Erlandson‐Parry, K., Gait, L., Laing, P., Senniappan, S. (2022). Childhood obesity: A review of current and future management options. Clinical Endocrinology, 96(3), 288-301.
  8. Kadouh, H.C., Acosta, A. (2017). Current paradigms in the etiology of obesity. Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 19(1), 2-11.
  9. Wu, T.C., Chen, P.H. (2009). Health consequences of nutrition in childhood and early infancy. Pediatrics & Neonatology, 50(4), 135-142.
  10. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Murray, C. J. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492.
  11. World Health Organization (WHO). (2019). Sustainable healthy diets: Guiding principles. Food & Agriculture Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516648 (Erişim Tarihi: 12.03.2023).
  12. Bayram, H.M., Ozturkcan, S.A. (2022). Greenhouse gas emissions in the food system: Current and alternative dietary scenarios. Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 15(4), 463-477.
  13. Song, G., Li, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., Williamson, D., Wang, Y. (2017). Dietary changes to mitigate climate change and benefit public health in China. Science of the Total Environment, 577, 289-298.
  14. Vieux, F., Soler, L.G., Touazi, D., Darmon, N. (2013). High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 97(3), 569-583.
  15. Sugimoto, M., Murakami, K., Fujiwara, A., Asakura, K., Masayasu, S., Sasaki, S. (2020). Association between diet-related greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient intake adequacy among Japanese adults. PloS One, 15(10), e0240803.
  16. Burek, P., Satoh, Y., Fischer, G., Kahil, M.T., Scherzer, A., Tramberend, S., Wiberg, D. (2016). Water futures and Solution. 3: Future searios - WFaS Futures Analsis Approach. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria. 12-13p.
  17. Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y. (2012). A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems, 15(3), 401-415.
  18. Howells, M., Hermann, S., Welsch, M., Bazilian, M., Segerström, R., Alfstad, T., Ramma, I. (2013). Integrated analysis of climate change, land-use, energy and water strategies. Nature Climate Change, 3(7), 621-626.
  19. Tukker, A., Goldbohm, R.A., De Koning, A., Verheijden, M., Kleijn, R., Wolf, O., Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. (2011). Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in Europe. Ecological Economics, 70(10), 1776-1788.
  20. International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management: Life cycle assessment; Principles and framework. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2023).
  21. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T. (2009). A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering, 90(1), 1-10.
  22. Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J.C., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., Williams, A.G. (2010). How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope reduction by 2050. Report for the WWF and Food Climate Research Network.
  23. Clune, S., Crossin, E., Verghese, K. (2017). Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 766-783.
  24. Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., Key, T.J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change, 125(2), 179-192.
  25. Ridoutt, B.G., Pfister, S. (2013). A new water footprint calculation method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 204-207.
  26. Water Footprint Network. (2014). https://www.waterfootprint.org/water-footprint-2/what-is-water-footprint-assessment/ (Erişim Tarihi: 07.02.2023).
  27. Can, B., Bayram, H.M., Öztürkcan, S.A. (2021). Çevresel sorunlara karşı çözüm önerileri: Güncel sürdürülebilir beslenme uygulamalarına genel bakış. Gıda, 46 (5), 1138-1157.
  28. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., Roser, M. (2022). Environmental Impacts of Food Production. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food (Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2023).
  29. LCA Foot Database. (2007). http://www.lcafood.dk/. (Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2023).
  30. Schramski, J.R., Woodson, C.B., Brown, J.H. (2020). Energy use and the sustainability of intensifying food production. Nature Sustainability, 3(4), 257-259.
  31. Doran-Browne, N.A., Eckard, R.J., Behrendt, R., Kingwell, R.S. (2015). Nutrient density as a metric for comparing greenhouse gas emissions from food production. Climatic Change, 129, 73-87.
  32. Van Dooren, C., Marinussen, M., Blonk, H., Aiking, H., Vellinga, P. (2014). Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: a comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy, 44, 36-46.
  33. Madalı, B., Karabulut, Ö.F., Öztürk, E.E., Parlak, L., Erdinç, A.Ş., Dikmen, D. (2021). Toplu beslenme hizmeti veren bir kuruluşta sunulan menünün sera gazı emisyon ve su ayakizi düzeylerinin mevsimlere göre değerlendirilmesi. Beslenme ve Diyet Dergisi, 49(1), 5-14.
  34. González-García, S., Esteve-Llorens, X., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G. (2018). Carbon footprint and nutritional quality of different human dietary choices. Science of the Total Environment, 644, 77-94.
  35. Lindgren, E., Harris, F., Dangour, A.D., Gasparatos, A., Hiramatsu, M., Javadi, F., Haines, A. (2018). Sustainable food systems-a health perspective. Sustainability Science, 13, 1505-1517.
  36. Prag, A.A., Henriksen, C.B. (2020). Transition from animal-based to plant-based food production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture-the case of Denmark. Sustainability, 12(19), 8228.
  37. Nelson, M.E., Hamm, M.W., Hu, F.B., Abrams, S.A., Griffin, T.S. (2016). Alignment of healthy dietary patterns and environmental sustainability: a systematic review. Advances in Nutrition, 7(6), 1005-1025.
  38. Perignon, M., Vieux, F., Soler, L.G., Masset, G., Darmon, N. (2017). Improving diet sustainability through evolution of food choices: review of epidemiological studies on the environmental impact of diets. Nutrition Reviews, 75(1), 2-17.
  39. Wickramasinghe, K.K., Rayner, M., Goldacre, M., Townsend, N., Scarborough, P. (2016). Contribution of healthy and unhealthy primary school meals to greenhouse gas emissions in England: linking nutritional data and greenhouse gas emission data of diets. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70(10), 1162-1167.
  40. Turan, E.S. (2017). Türkiye'nin su ayak izi değerlendirmesi. Turkish Bulletin of Hygiene & Experimental Biology/Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji, 74(Ek-1), 55-62.
  41. Tom, M.S., Fischbeck, P.S., Hendrickson, C.T. (2016). Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US. Environment Systems and Decisions, 36(1), 92-10.