Introduction of Renewable Energy in the Spanish Wine Sector
<p>World area under vines by country.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>World wine production by country.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Locations of surveyed wineries.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Resources that wineries in the sample assigned to environmental management.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Destination of vineyard pruning waste.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Winery groups.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Comparison among winery groups.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Energy and Climate Change
1.2. The Wine Sector and Its Energy Use
1.3. The Spanish Wine Sector
1.4. Penetration of Renewable Energy in the Spanish Wine Sector
1.5. From Attitudes to Innovations in the Wine Sector
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample of Wineries
2.2. Questionnaire
- The first block of questions identified and located the wineries by name, municipality, and province; the wine area they belong to, the year they were established, the majority shareholders, and the legal form of the company.
- The second block of questions were about the company’s activity. This involved questions on the number of employees, turnover volume, and gross floor area, to establish whether it was a large or small winery. Wineries were also questioned on the percentage of different qualities of wine they produced and of the foreign market sales out of their total sales. Another important issue was establishing whether they performed additional activities, and what percentage these represent of their total turnover. Furthermore, of interest was learning where the grapes used in producing their wine came from; in other words, whether the grapes were their own, or they came from vine growers with or without a contract, or from cooperatives. It was obviously important to discover how many hectares were involved, and whether they participated in their management whilst the crop was growing.
- The third block of questions focused on environmental responsibility and policy. Wineries were asked if they had any organic winemaking certification, if they had calculated the carbon footprint of their activity or products, if they conducted energy audits, and if they had their own resources to manage the company’s environmental policy.
- The fourth block of questions was aimed at analyzing wineries’ attitudes on climate change. The purpose was to know whether the wineries were convinced that the climate had changed, and what their level of willingness was to reduce their CO2 emissions. We were interested in finding out, which measures they had already adopted.
- The fifth block included questions on renewable energy. The companies were asked about the type of energy they used, whether they were convinced of the need to use renewables, their opinion on the outlay for implementing them, and the aspects they valued to adopt their use, such as reliability, environmental sustainability, grants, and the impact on their image.
- The last block of questions was aimed at knowing whether the use of renewable energy was technically and economically viable. Consequently, questions were included on the use and consumption of non-renewables, especially electricity, diesel, and gas. Wineries were asked about their consumption trend throughout the year, their level of concern for energy costs, and whether they had reviewed invoices and the power usage stated in their contract, with a view to reducing it.
2.3. Descriptions of the Variables
- Convinced use: This variable measured, on a 0–10 scale, the degree of agreement of the winery with the need to use renewable energy. A score of 0 indicated that the winery strongly disagreed, and 10 that it strongly agreed.
- Investment: This variable measured, on a 0–10 scale, the winery’s perception of the importance of the investment associated with implementing renewable energy. A score of 0 indicated that the winery thinks it is a very small expense, and 10 that the expense is very high.
- Operational costs: This variable measured, on a 0–10 scale, the winery’s perception of the dimension of operational costs associated with adopting renewable energies. A score of 0 indicated that the winery thinks it is a very small expense, and 10 that the expense is very high.
- Maintenance costs: This variable measured, on a 0–10 scale, the winery’s perception of the dimension of maintenance costs associated with adopting renewable energy. A score of 0 indicated that the winery thinks it is a very small expense, and 10 that the expense is very high.
- Grants: This variable measured, on a 0–10 scale, the importance the winery gives to the existence of subsidies for adopting renewable energy. A score of 0 indicated that the winery considered the existence of subsidies unimportant, and 10 that it was very important.
- Image: This variable measured, on a 0–10 scale, the importance of the effect on the corporate image of adopting renewable energy. A score of 0 indicated that the winery considered the impact unimportant, and 10 that it was very important.
- Reliability: This variable measured, on a 0–10 scale, the importance that the winery gives to the reliability of renewable energy at the time of deciding on its adoption. A score of 0 indicated that the winery considered it unimportant, and 10 that it was very important.
- Sustainability: This variable measured, on a 0–10 scale, the importance that the winery gives to sustainability in its decision to implement renewable energy. A score of 0 indicated that the winery considered it unimportant, and 10 that it was very important.
3. Results
3.1. Description of the Sample
3.1.1. Company Activity
3.1.2. The Company’s Environmental Policy
3.1.3. Attitudes on Climate Change
3.1.4. Renewable Energy: Use and Attitude
3.1.5. Use of Conventional Energy
3.2. Descriptive Statistics of the Variables
3.3. Determinant Factors
- Cost factor: This factor is positively related to operational and maintenance costs. That is, if a winery considers that the costs associated with renewable energy are high, then it has a high score in the cost factor.
- Conviction factor: This factor is positively related to the conviction of using renewable energy and reputational image. That is, if a winery is convinced of using renewables and gives great importance to perceived image, then it has a high score in the conviction factor.
- Investment factor: This factor is positively related to investment. That is, if a winery considers the investment in renewable energy to be too high, then it has a high score in the investment factor. Therefore, it probably prefers to adopt other measures to mitigate climate change. This factor also includes companies with high scores in the subsidies variable, which means that companies would see subsidies as a way to compensate for the high amount of investment.
- Sustainability factor: This factor is positively related to motivations that can lead a winery to adopt renewable energy, such as the importance of sustainability and reliability. That is, if a winery considers that sustainability and reliability are decisive for implementing renewables, then it has a high score in the motivation factor.
3.4. Types of Wineries
4. Discussion
- Companies that do not trust renewable energy. This group comprised 40% of the sample. These companies were not convinced of the environmental importance of introducing renewable energy. They did not believe that renewables were sufficiently developed to be a reliable energy supply. The main driver they considered for incorporating them, is the impact on image and reputation. They were not worried about the investment, and consequently they did not feel the need to establish a subsidy system.
- Companies that are not convinced to introduce renewable energy. This group comprised 40% of the sample. These companies were not convinced to introduce renewable energy. Neither environmental nor reputation points were sufficient to motivate them. They did not consider that in their case, starting up renewable energy will give them an image improvement or significant CO2 savings. They considered that the investment costs were high, and the environmental improvement to their image would not compensate them. However, they were not worried about the maintenance costs.
- Companies that are convinced to introduce renewable energy. This group comprised 20% of the sample. These companies wanted to reduce CO2 emissions. Their interest in sustainability was the main driver, above factors such as obtaining a clean company image. For these companies, reliable supply and environmental improvement were the most outstanding aspects. They were not worried about the investment costs. In contrast, they considered that the maintenance costs are high.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sacchelli, S.; Fabbrizzi, S.; Bertocci, M.; Marone, E.; Menghini, S.; Bernetti, I. A mix-method model for adaptation to climate change in the agricultural sector: A case study for Italian wine farms. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 891–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chel, A.; Kaushik, G. Renewable energy for sustainable agriculture. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 91–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Zhang, S.; Bae, J. The impact of renewable energy and agriculture on carbon dioxide emissions: Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve in four selected ASEAN countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 1239–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Dallemand, J.-F.; Pascua, I.P.; Motola, V.; Banja, M.; Scarlat, N.; Medarac, H.; Castellazzi, L.; Labanca, N.; Bertoldi, P.; et al. Energy Use in the EU Food Sector: State of Play and Opportunities for Improvement; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015; ISBN 9789279482991. [Google Scholar]
- Schultz, H.R.; Jones, G.V. Climate induced historic and future changes in viticulture. J. Wine Res. 2010, 21, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, N.K. The influence of recent climate change on wine regions in Quebec, Canada. J. Wine Res. 2012, 23, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teixeira, A.; Eiras-Dias, J.; Castellarin, S.D.; Gerós, H. Berry phenolics of grapevine under challenging environments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 18711–18739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palliotti, A.; Tombesi, S.; Silvestroni, O.; Lanari, V.; Gatti, M.; Poni, S. Changes in vineyard establishment and canopy management urged by earlier climate-related grape ripening: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 178, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moriondo, M.; Jones, G.V.; Bois, B.; Dibari, C.; Ferrise, R.; Trombi, G.; Bindi, M. Projected shifts of wine regions in response to climate change. Clim. Chang. 2013, 119, 825–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mozell, M.R.; Thach, L. The impact of climate change on the global wine industry: Challenges & solutions. Wine Econ. Policy 2014, 3, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomarici, E.; Seccia, A. Economic and Social Impacts of Climate Change on Wine Production. Ref. Modul. Food Sci. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christ, K.L.; Burritt, R.L. Critical environmental concerns in wine production: An integrative review. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zambon, I.; Colantoni, A.; Cecchini, M.; Mosconi, E.M. Rethinking sustainability within the viticulture realities integrating economy, landscape and energy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smyth, M.; Nesbitt, A. Energy and English wine production: A review of energy use and benchmarking. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014, 23, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smyth, M.; Russell, J. ‘From graft to bottle’-Analysis of energy use in viticulture and wine production and the potential for solar renewable technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1985–1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cholette, S.; Venkat, K. The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: A study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1401–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barroso, J.M. Climate and Energy Priorities for Europe: The Way Forward; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Aurand, J. OIV Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture; International Organization of Vine and Wine: Paris, France, 2017; Available online: http://www.oiv.int/public/medias/5479/oiv-en-bilan-2017.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2018).
- Yaqoot, M.; Diwan, P.; Kandpal, T.C. Review of barriers to the dissemination of decentralized renewable energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 477–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Lorente, D.; Rabaza, O.; Aznar-Dols, F.; Mercado-Vargas, M.J. Economic and environmental study of wineries powered by grid-connected photovoltaic systems in Spain. Energies 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroquino, J.; Dufo-López, R.; Bernal-Agustín, J.L. Sizing of off-grid renewable energy systems for drip irrigation in Mediterranean crops. Renew. Energy 2015, 76, 566–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado, F.; Ortiz, A.; Renedo, C.J.; Pérez, S.; Mañana, M.; Arroyo, A. Evaluating the supply security of the future Spanish generating system. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 47, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations Theory; New York Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Long, T.B.; Blok, V.; Coninx, I. Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe: Evidence from the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, R.S.; Akoorie, M.E.M.; Hamann, R.; Sinha, P. Environmental practices in the wine industry: An empirical application of the theory of reasoned action and stakeholder theory in the United States and New Zealand. J. World Bus. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pannell, D.J.; Marshall, G.R.; Barr, N.; Curtis, A.; Vanclay, F.; Wilkinson, R. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2006, 46, 1407–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forbes, S.L.; Cullen, R.; Grout, R. Adoption of environmental innovations: Analysis from the Waipara wine industry. Wine Econ. Policy 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bewsell, D.; Kaine, G. Adoption of environmental best practice amongst dairy farmers. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Nelson, New Zealand, 26–27 August 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Schäufele, I.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sogari, G.; Pucci, T.; Aquilani, B.; Zanni, L. Millennial Generation and Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Social Media in the Consumer Purchasing Behavior for Wine. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomarici, E.; Vecchio, R.; Mariani, A. Wineries’ perception of sustainability costs and benefits: An exploratory study in California. Sustainability 2015, 7, 16164–16174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baird, T.; Hall, C.M.; Castka, P. New Zealand Winegrowers attitudes and behaviours towards wine tourism and sustainable winegrowing. Sustainability 2018, 10, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wongprawmas, R.; Spadoni, R. Is innovation needed in the Old World wine market? The perception of Italian stakeholders. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1315–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariani, A.; Vastola, A. Sustainable winegrowing: Current perspectives. Int. J. Wine Res. 2015, 7, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szolnoki, G. A cross-national comparison of sustainability in the wine industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbo, C.; Lamastra, L.; Capri, E. From environmental to sustainability programs: A review of sustainability initiatives in the Italian wine sector. Sustainability 2014, 6, 2133–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roda, V.; Carroquino, J.; Valiño, L.; Lozano, A.; Barreras, F. Remodeling of a commercial plug-in battery electric vehicle to a hybrid configuration with a PEM fuel cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 16959–16970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroquino, J.; Roda, V.; Mustata, R.; Yago, J.; Valiño, L.; Lozano, A.; Barreras, F. Combined production of electricity and hydrogen from solar energy and its use in the wine sector. Renew. Energy 2018, 122, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SABI: Análisis de Balances de Empresas—INFORMA D&B. Available online: https://www.informa.es/soluciones-financieras/sabi (accessed on 1 March 2018).
- Luthra, S.; Kumar, S.; Garg, D.; Haleem, A. Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 762–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, F.S.; Scavarda, A.J.; Sellitto, M.A.; Lopes Marques, D.I. Sustainability in the winemaking industry: An analysis of Southern Brazilian companies based on a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sautier, M.; Legun, K.A.; Rosin, C.; Campbell, H. Sustainability: A tool for governing wine production in New Zealand? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 179, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sustainable Winegrowing New Zealand Standards. Available online: https://www.nzwine.com/media/6650/sustainable-winegrowing-new-zealand-standards.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2018).
- Hewitt, R.J.; Winder, N.P.; Hernández Jiménez, V.; Martínez Alonso, P.; Román Bermejo, L. Innovation, pathways and barriers in Spain and beyond: An integrative research approach to the clean energy transition in Europe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 34, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tey, Y.S.; Brindal, M. Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A review for policy implications. Precis. Agric. 2012, 13, 713–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Spanish Regions | Number of Wineries | Sample Wineries |
---|---|---|
Andalucía | 287 | 7 |
Aragón | 144 | 3 |
Asturias | 19 | 0 |
Baleares | 57 | 1 |
Canarias | 84 | 2 |
Cantabria | 5 | 0 |
Castilla-León | 597 | 13 |
Castilla-La Mancha | 445 | 10 |
Cataluña | 603 | 13 |
Extremadura | 118 | 3 |
Galicia | 342 | 8 |
La Rioja | 326 | 7 |
Madrid | 195 | 4 |
Murcia | 87 | 2 |
Navarra | 116 | 3 |
País Vasco | 261 | 6 |
Valencia | 208 | 5 |
Total | 3894 | 87 |
Block | Topic |
---|---|
I | Identification and location |
II | Company activity |
III | Company’s environmental policy |
IV | Attitude on climate change |
V | Renewable energy use and attitude |
VI | Use and consumption of nonrenewable energy |
Reason to Incorporate Irrigation | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
Assure/improve grape quality | 80 |
Compensate for rainfall variations | 40 |
Increase grape production | 40 |
Reason to Not Incorporate Irrigation | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
Type of wine produced | 53 |
Maintain traditions | 30 |
Respect the microclimate of the vineyard | 25 |
Lack of water | 20 |
Administrative difficulties | 8 |
No electricity available | 3 |
Other (including appellation of origin rules) | 15 |
Climate Change Mitigation Measure | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
Recycling | 93 |
Efficient consumption management | 69 |
Improve thermal insulation | 64 |
Purchase low consumption equipment | 51 |
Reduce weight of packaging | 44 |
New types of containers | 35 |
Estimation and reduction of emissions | 15 |
Other | 13 |
Climate Change Adaptation Measure | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
Advance the vintage date | 47 |
Introduce or increase irrigation | 28 |
Vegetal ground cover | 25 |
Introduce new grape varieties | 21 |
Transfer to higher altitude vineyards | 21 |
Change the architecture of the vineyard | 13 |
Other | 4 |
Aspect Favoring the Adoption of Renewables | Mean | Median |
---|---|---|
Environmental sustainability | 8.60 | 8 |
Impact on image | 7.84 | 8 |
Reliability | 7.24 | 7 |
Existence of grants | 7.12 | 7 |
Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|
Convinced use | 7.28 | 2.57 |
Investment | 8.33 | 1.29 |
Operational cost | 5.48 | 2.41 |
Maintenance cost | 5.44 | 2.30 |
Reliability | 7.24 | 2.19 |
Sustainability | 8.57 | 1.32 |
Grants | 7.12 | 2.43 |
Image | 7.84 | 1.80 |
Cost Factor | Conviction Factor | Investment Factor | Sustainability Factor | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Operational cost | 0.943 | – | – | – |
Maintenance cost | 0.936 | – | – | – |
Convinced use | – | 0.863 | – | – |
Image | – | 0.797 | – | – |
Grants | – | – | 0.840 | – |
Investment | – | – | 0.728 | – |
Reliability | – | – | – | 0.825 |
Sustainability | – | – | – | 0.785 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Garcia-Casarejos, N.; Gargallo, P.; Carroquino, J. Introduction of Renewable Energy in the Spanish Wine Sector. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093157
Garcia-Casarejos N, Gargallo P, Carroquino J. Introduction of Renewable Energy in the Spanish Wine Sector. Sustainability. 2018; 10(9):3157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093157
Chicago/Turabian StyleGarcia-Casarejos, Nieves, Pilar Gargallo, and Javier Carroquino. 2018. "Introduction of Renewable Energy in the Spanish Wine Sector" Sustainability 10, no. 9: 3157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093157
APA StyleGarcia-Casarejos, N., Gargallo, P., & Carroquino, J. (2018). Introduction of Renewable Energy in the Spanish Wine Sector. Sustainability, 10(9), 3157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093157