IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i21p15669-d1275055.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment of Tomato Cultivated in an Innovative Soilless System

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Concetta Pedalà

    (Circular S.R.L., Via Libertà 34, 90141 Palermo, Italy)

  • Marzia Traverso

    (Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany)

  • Simona Prestigiacomo

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Build. 4, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

  • Antonio Covais

    (Circular S.R.L., Via Libertà 34, 90141 Palermo, Italy)

  • Giovanni Gugliuzza

    (CREA Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification, c/o Dip. SAAF Unipa, Viale delle Scienze, Build. 4, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

Abstract

The main goal of this study is to present the life cycle assessment results of an innovative closed-loop production system, called an agriponic system, used for producing tomatoes. In the study, this new system is presented, as well as its related environmental impacts generated for the production of the tomatoes. A life cycle assessment (according to ISO 14040) was applied to it, from seedling purchase and planting to harvest, using a functional unit of 1 ton of cherry tomatoes produced. SimaPro 9.3.0.3 software and the Ecoinvent database were used to analyze five impact categories. Plant growth emerged as the process unit with the highest impact, particularly for the ozone depletion potential (ODP), with a value of 0.00056 kgCFC-11eq, and for photochemical oxidation (POCP), with a value of 0.0784 kgC 2 H 4 eq impact categories. Greenhouse climate management presented a significant impact to the acidification potential (AP), with a value of 1.021 kgSO 2 eq. Conversely, the phases of plant transplanting, harvesting, and crop disposal had positive impacts for all impact categories considered in the study, because they were very low. In conclusion, agriponic greenhouse tomato production is a sustainable process. This is due to fewer pesticides that are used, and to nutrient solution reuse.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Concetta Pedalà & Marzia Traverso & Simona Prestigiacomo & Antonio Covais & Giovanni Gugliuzza, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of Tomato Cultivated in an Innovative Soilless System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:21:p:15669-:d:1275055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/21/15669/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/21/15669/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert H. Beach & Benjamin J. DeAngelo & Steven Rose & Changsheng Li & William Salas & Stephen J. DelGrosso, 2008. "Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions-super-1," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 109-115, March.
    2. Silvia Solimene & Daniela Coluccia & Alessandro Bernardo, 2023. "Environmental Impact of Different Business Models: An LCA Study of Fresh Tomato Production in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Innocent Bakam & Robin Matthews, 2009. "Emission trading in agriculture: a study of design options using an agent-based approach," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 14(8), pages 755-776, December.
    2. De Cara, Stéphane & Jayet, Pierre-Alain, 2011. "Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture, cost effectiveness, and the EU non-ETS burden sharing agreement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1680-1690, July.
    3. MacLeod, Michael & Moran, Dominic & Eory, Vera & Rees, R.M. & Barnes, Andrew & Topp, Cairistiona F.E. & Ball, Bruce & Hoad, Steve & Wall, Eileen & McVittie, Alistair & Pajot, Guillaume & Matthews, Rob, 2010. "Developing greenhouse gas marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural emissions from crops and soils in the UK," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(4), pages 198-209, May.
    4. Wang, Wen, 2015. "Intégrer l'agriculture dans les politiques d'atténuation chinoises," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/14999 edited by Perthuis, Christian de.
    5. repec:bla:afrdev:v:29:y:2017:i:s2:p:163-178 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Lungarska, Anna & Chakir, Raja, 2018. "Climate-induced Land Use Change in France: Impacts of Agricultural Adaptation and Climate Change Mitigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 134-154.
    7. Ajay Gambhir & Tamaryn Napp & Adam Hawkes & Lena Höglund-Isaksson & Wilfried Winiwarter & Pallav Purohit & Fabian Wagner & Dan Bernie & Jason Lowe, 2017. "The Contribution of Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation to Achieving Long-Term Temperature Goals," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Jing Hou & Bo Hou, 2019. "Farmers’ Adoption of Low-Carbon Agriculture in China: An Extended Theory of the Planned Behavior Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Stefan Wirsenius & Fredrik Hedenus & Kristina Mohlin, 2011. "Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 159-184, September.
    10. Röder, Norbert & Henseler, Martin & Liebersbach, Horst & Kreins, Peter & Osterburg, Bernhard, 2014. "Evaluation of land use based greenhouse gas mitigation measures in Germany," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182674, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Nigel Key & Gregoire Tallard, 2012. "Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 387-414, May.
    12. Kenneth Gillingham & James H. Stock, 2018. "The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(4), pages 53-72, Fall.
    13. Fredrik Hedenus & Stefan Wirsenius & Daniel Johansson, 2014. "The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 79-91, May.
    14. Xiaowen Dai & Xin Wu & Yi Chen & Yanqiu He & Fang Wang & Yuying Liu, 2022. "Real Drivers and Spatial Characteristics of CO 2 Emissions from Animal Husbandry: A Regional Empirical Study of China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Cordelia Kreft & Robert Huber & David Schäfer & Robert Finger, 2024. "Quantifying the impact of farmers' social networks on the effectiveness of climate change mitigation policies in agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 298-322, February.
    16. Raitzer, David A. & Maredia, Mywish K., 2012. "Analysis of agricultural research investment priorities for sustainable poverty reduction in Southeast Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 412-426.
    17. Wen Wang & Frank Koslowski & Dali Rani Nayak & Pete Smith & Eli Saetnan & Xiaotang Ju & Liping Guo & Guodong Han & Christian de Perthuis & Erda Lin & Dominic Moran, 2013. "Greenhouse gas mitigation in Chinese agriculture: distinguishing technical and economic potentials," Working Papers 1310, Chaire Economie du climat.
    18. Laure Bamière & Pierre‐Alain Jayet & Salomé Kahindo & Elsa Martin, 2021. "Carbon sequestration in French agricultural soils: A spatial economic evaluation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 301-316, March.
    19. B. Henderson & A. Golub & D. Pambudi & T. Hertel & C. Godde & M. Herrero & O. Cacho & P. Gerber, 2018. "The power and pain of market-based carbon policies: a global application to greenhouse gases from ruminant livestock production," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 349-369, March.
    20. Antonia Weishaupt & Felix Ekardt & Beatrice Garske & Jessica Stubenrauch & Jutta Wieding, 2020. "Land Use, Livestock, Quantity Governance, and Economic Instruments—Sustainability Beyond Big Livestock Herds and Fossil Fuels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-27, March.
    21. Vermont, Bruno & De Cara, Stéphane, 2010. "How costly is mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture?: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1373-1386, May.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:21:p:15669-:d:1275055. 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.