IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i1p138-d194285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Impact and Carbon Footprint Assessment of Taiwanese Agricultural Products: A Case Study on Taiwanese Dongshan Tea

Author

Listed:
  • Allen H. Hu

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan)

  • Chia-Hsiang Chen

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan)

  • Lance Hongwei Huang

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan)

  • Ming-Hsiu Chung

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan)

  • Yi-Chen Lan

    (School of Business, University of Western Sydney, Penrith South DC, NSW 2750, Australia)

  • Zhonghua Chen

    (Natural Science, University of Western Sydney, Penrith South DC, NSW 2750, Australia)

Abstract

Climate change is an important global environmental threat. Agriculture aggravates climate change by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and in response, climate change reduces agricultural productivity. Consequently, the modern agricultural development mode has progressively transformed into a kind of sustainable development mode. This study aimed to determine the environmental impact and carbon footprint of Dongshan tea from Yilan County. Environmental impact was assessed with use of SimaPro version 8.0.2 and IMPACT2002+. Results showed that climate change has the largest impact upon it in general, followed by human health, natural resources, and ecosystem quality. Furthermore, with use of the IPCC 2007 100a method for carbon footprint of products (CFP), conventional tea was found to have a CFP of 7.035 kgCO 2 -e, and its main contributors are the raw material (35.15%) and consumer use (45.58%) phases. From this case study, we found that the hotspots of the life cycle of environmental impact of Taiwanese tea mainly come from fertilizer input during the raw material phase, electricity use during manufacturing, and electricity use during water boiling in the consumer use phase (which contributes the largest impact). We propose the ways for consumers to use of highly efficient boiling water facilities and heating preservation, and the government must market the use of organic fertilizers in the national policy subsidies, and farmers have to prudent use of fertilizers and promote the use of local raw fertilizers, and engagement in direct sales for reducing the environmental impacts and costs of agricultural products and thus advancing sustainable agriculture development.

Suggested Citation

  • Allen H. Hu & Chia-Hsiang Chen & Lance Hongwei Huang & Ming-Hsiu Chung & Yi-Chen Lan & Zhonghua Chen, 2019. "Environmental Impact and Carbon Footprint Assessment of Taiwanese Agricultural Products: A Case Study on Taiwanese Dongshan Tea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:138-:d:194285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/1/138/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/1/138/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang, Qianwen & Gao, Wujun & Su, Shiliang & Weng, Min & Cai, Zhongliang, 2017. "Biophysical and socioeconomic determinants of tea expansion: Apportioning their relative importance for sustainable land use policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 438-447.
    2. Tao Gao & Qing Liu & Jianping Wang, 2014. "A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 237-243.
    3. Chih-Chun Kung & Bruce A. McCarl & Chi-Chung Chen & Xiaoyong Cao, 2014. "Environmental Impact and Energy Production: Evaluation of Biochar Application on Taiwanese Set-Aside Land," Energy & Environment, , vol. 25(1), pages 13-39, February.
    4. Dassisti, Michele & Intini, Francesca & Chimienti, Michela & Starace, Giuseppe, 2016. "Thermography-enhanced LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) for manufacturing sustainability assessment. The case study of an HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) net company in Italy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 7-18.
    5. Li Li & Wenliang Wu & Paul Giller & John O’Halloran & Long Liang & Peng Peng & Guishen Zhao, 2018. "Life Cycle Assessment of a Highly Diverse Vegetable Multi-Cropping System in Fengqiu County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Istvan Rado & Mei-Fei Lu & I-Chen Lin & Ken Aoo, 2021. "Societal Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Asian Rural Societies: A Multi-Sectoral Social Capital Approach in Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Wen-Hsien Tsai, 2019. "Modeling and Simulation of Carbon Emission-Related Issues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-8, July.
    3. Faezeh Mohammadi Kashka & Zeinolabedin Tahmasebi Sarvestani & Hemmatollah Pirdashti & Ali Motevali & Mehdi Nadi & Mohammad Valipour, 2023. "Sustainable Systems Engineering Using Life Cycle Assessment: Application of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Agro-Environmental Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, April.
    4. Nabajyoti Bhattacharjee & Nabendu Sen, 2022. "A sustainable production inventory model for profit maximization under optimum raw material input rate during production," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 59(2), pages 667-693, June.
    5. Eugene Yin Cheung Wong & Danny C. K. Ho & Stuart So & Mark Ching‐Pong Poo, 2022. "Sustainable consumption and production: Modelling product carbon footprint of beverage merchandise using a supply chain input‐process‐output approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 175-188, January.
    6. Nabajyoti Bhattacharjee & Nabendu Sen, 2021. "An inventory model to study the effect of the probabilistic rate of carbon emission on the profit earned by a supplier," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 31(4), pages 5-33.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eastwood, C.R. & Turner, F.J. & Romera, A.J., 2022. "Farmer-centred design: An affordances-based framework for identifying processes that facilitate farmers as co-designers in addressing complex agricultural challenges," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Malte Jütting, 2020. "Exploring Mission-Oriented Innovation Ecosystems for Sustainability: Towards a Literature-Based Typology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Verburg, René W. & Verberne, Emma & Negro, Simona O., 2022. "Accelerating the transition towards sustainable agriculture: The case of organic dairy farming in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    4. Maria de Fátima Oliveira & Francisco Gomes da Silva & Susana Ferreira & Margarida Teixeira & Henrique Damásio & António Dinis Ferreira & José Manuel Gonçalves, 2019. "Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Case Study of Lis Valley Irrigation District, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Hazem S. Kassem & Hamed Ismail & Yomna A. Ghoneim, 2022. "Assessment of Institutional Linkages and Information Flow within the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation: Case of Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-26, May.
    6. Naama Teschner & Daniel E. Orenstein, 2022. "A transdisciplinary study of agroecological niches: understanding sustainability transitions in vineyards," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 33-45, March.
    7. Hidalgo, Francisco & Quiñones-Ruiz, Xiomara F. & Birkenberg, Athena & Daum, Thomas & Bosch, Christine & Hirsch, Patrick & Birner, Regina, 2023. "Digitalization, sustainability, and coffee. Opportunities and challenges for agricultural development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    8. Tatbita Titin Suhariyanto & Dzuraidah Abd Wahab & Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman, 2018. "Product Design Evaluation Using Life Cycle Assessment and Design for Assembly: A Case Study of a Water Leakage Alarm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    9. Jan Hassink & Herman Agricola & Esther J. Veen & Roald Pijpker & Simone R. de Bruin & Harold A. B. van der Meulen & Lana B. Plug, 2020. "The Care Farming Sector in The Netherlands: A Reflection on Its Developments and Promising Innovations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, May.
    10. Nicholas A. Kirk & Nicholas A. Cradock-Henry, 2022. "Land Management Change as Adaptation to Climate and Other Stressors: A Systematic Review of Decision Contexts Using Values-Rules-Knowledge," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, May.
    11. Sean McKenzie & Hilary Parkinson & Jane Mangold & Mary Burrows & Selena Ahmed & Fabian Menalled, 2018. "Perceptions, Experiences, and Priorities Supporting Agroecosystem Management Decisions Differ among Agricultural Producers, Consultants, and Researchers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    13. Alireza Norouzi & Hassan Sadighi & Enayat Abbasi & Hossein Shabanali Fami & Hamidreza Mokhtari Aski, 2023. "Strategic analysis of startup ecosystem in Iran’s agricultural sector," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Kebebe, E., 2019. "Bridging technology adoption gaps in livestock sector in Ethiopia: A innovation system perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 30-37.
    15. Meunier, Clémentine & Casagrande, Marion & Rosiès, Blandine & Bedoussac, Laurent & Topp, Cairistiona F.E. & Walker, Robin L. & Watson, Christine A. & Martin, Guillaume, 2022. "Interplay: A game for the participatory design of locally adapted cereal–legume intercrops," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    16. Inga C. Melchior & Jens Newig, 2021. "Governing Transitions towards Sustainable Agriculture—Taking Stock of an Emerging Field of Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, January.
    17. Shuai Li & Haiyu Ma & Di Yang & Wei Hu & Hao Li, 2023. "The Main Drivers of Wetland Evolution in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Plain," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, February.
    18. Wolfert, Sjaak & Verdouw, Cor & van Wassenaer, Lan & Dolfsma, Wilfred & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Digital innovation ecosystems in agri-food: design principles and organizational framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    19. Kenny, Ursula & Regan, Áine & Hearne, Dave & O'Meara, Christine, 2021. "Empathising, defining and ideating with the farming community to develop a geotagged photo app for smart devices: A design thinking approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    20. Contesse, Maria & Duncan, Jessica & Legun, Katharine & Klerkx, Laurens, 2021. "Unravelling non-human agency in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:138-:d:194285. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.