case_images: PMC7677360_01
case_images: The white and gray bars represent the water and carbon footprint of the average menu or those obtained by minimizing either the water or the carbon footprint.
case_images: fnut-07-562833-g0004.jpg
case_images: PMC7677360_01_fnut-07-562833-g0004.jpg
case_images: F4
case_images: These values are compared with those of the average menu in Figure 4.
case_images: PMC7677360_02
case_images: Relation between the price and the carbon footprint of optimal menus.
case_images: fnut-07-562833-g0005.jpg
case_images: PMC7677360_02_fnut-07-562833-g0005.jpg
case_images: F5
case_images: Any of such a menu corresponds to a point on the vertical segment of the curve in Figure 5. Any of such a menu corresponds to a point on the horizontal segment of the curve in Figure 5. This set is shown in Figure 5 and has been computed scalarizing the problem with the epsilon-constrained method, i.e., by solving a sequence of single objective optimization problems, under the same sustainability constraints, with the carbon footprint as objective function and the price constrained to be below an upper bound epsilon varying between 75.15 and 92.43 Euros. As Figure 5 clearly shows, the relation between carbon footprint and price is quite smooth.
case_images: Carbon footprint percentage change as a function of the percentage change of price, with respect to carbon footprint and price of the menus with minimum price.
case_images: fnut-07-562833-g0006.jpg
case_images: PMC7677360_02_fnut-07-562833-g0006.jpg
case_images: F6
case_images: Figure 6 shows the carbon footprint percentage change as a function of the percentage change of price where the changes are computed with respect to the values of the menus with minimum price.