IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/areint/364295.html

Ecological optimisation of vegetable production as a factor of the industry capitalisation

Author

Listed:
  • Lohosha, Roman
  • Lutkovska, Svitlana
  • Pidvalna, Oksana
  • Pronko, Lyudmila
  • Kolesnyk, Tetiana

Abstract

Purpose. The paper aims to present the concept and methodology for identifying ecologically and economically consistent parameters of production processes in vegetable growing. Methodology / approach. The research methodology assumes that crop production efficiency can be assessed by the carbon balance, where such a balance can have a specific economic expression as one of the efficiency criteria. The above is proposed to be carried out on the basis of the authors’ approach to assessing ecologically and economically consistent parameters of production processes in vegetable growing by the dynamics and balance of soil organic matter (humus). Results. The paper presents the results of the study of environmental problems of modern vegetable production, which provided the basis for a new interpretation of productivity, costs, efficiency, and balance of the industry. This interpretation was carried out on the basis of actual material on the industry operation in Ukraine as a whole and on the example of individual enterprises of the Vinnytsia region. On this basis, a complex – ecological and economic – criterion of production efficiency was proposed, as well as possible ways to solve the problem of environmental risks through the formation of a special type of management. One of the results was the empirical reflection of the processes of using and reproducing fertility as a capital-forming factor of long-term investment action in industry models. Originality / scientific novelty. For the first time, a description of the dynamics of Ukrainian vegetable production over the last 35 years was carried out as a separate, original model based on the following variables: productivity, manufacturability (costs and payback of fertilisers), weighted average indicators of annual mineralisation and humification, as well as the general balance of reproducing soil fertility in the production process. This model allows for the assessment of industry environmental risks and the justification of recommendations on the possibility of their minimisation. For the first time, the parameters of the positive impact of the transition to a market model of vegetable production were described using the criterion of soil fertility reproduction. Practical value / implications. Assessment, modelling, and forecasting of ecologically and economically consistent parameters of production processes in vegetable growing, in addition to scientific interest, is considered as a direct tool for maximising the efficiency of the vegetable market as a whole. In particular, the proposed approach is the basis for substantiating the structure (ratio of crops) and parameters (fertilisation, productivity, costs, efficiency) of vegetable production within the defined limitations of environmental management.

Suggested Citation

  • Lohosha, Roman & Lutkovska, Svitlana & Pidvalna, Oksana & Pronko, Lyudmila & Kolesnyk, Tetiana, . "Ecological optimisation of vegetable production as a factor of the industry capitalisation," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 11(1).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:areint:364295
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.364295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/364295/files/3_Lohosha_article.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.364295?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yi-Xuan Lu & Si-Ting Wang & Guan-Xin Yao & Jing Xu, 2023. "Green Total Factor Efficiency in Vegetable Production: A Comprehensive Ecological Analysis of China’s Practices," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-25, October.
    2. David Laborde & Abdullah Mamun & Will Martin & Valeria Piñeiro & Rob Vos, 2021. "Agricultural subsidies and global greenhouse gas emissions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    4. Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza & Amiri, Zahra & Campbell, Daniel E., 2020. "Evaluation of the sustainability of four greenhouse vegetable production ecosystems based on an analysis of emergy and social characteristics”," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 424(C).
    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. Ulrich Hoffmann, 2011. "Assuring Food Security In Developing Countries Under The Challenges Of Climate Change: Key Trade And Development Issues Of A Fundamental Transformation Of Agriculture," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 201, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    2. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    3. Obafèmi P. Koutchadé & Alain Carpentier & Fabienne Femenia, 2021. "Modeling Corners, Kinks, and Jumps in Crop Acreage Choices: Impacts of the EU Support to Protein Crops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1502-1524, August.
    4. Abdullah Mamun, 2024. "Impact of farm subsidies on global agricultural productivity," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 346-364, March.
    5. A B M Nurullah & Most Sanjida Khatun & Liesel Ritchie, 2025. "Industrial Wastewater Disposal and Its Socio-Environmental Consequences: Evidence from the Uttara Export Processing Zone, Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-23, August.
    6. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Jie Cai & Xianli Xia & Haibin Chen & Ting Wang & Huili Zhang, 2018. "Decomposition of Fertilizer Use Intensity and Its Environmental Risk in China’s Grain Production Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    8. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Gaurav Chugh & Kadambot H. M. Siddique & Zakaria M. Solaiman, 2021. "Nanobiotechnology for Agriculture: Smart Technology for Combating Nutrient Deficiencies with Nanotoxicity Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Eyni-Nargeseh, Hamed & Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza & Rahimi-Moghaddam, Sajjad & Gilani, Abdolali & Damghani, Abdolmajid Mahdavi & Azizi, Khosro, 2023. "Which rice farming system is more environmentally friendly in Khuzestan province, Iran? A study based on emergy analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 481(C).
    13. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    15. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    16. Chopin, Pierre & Blazy, Jean-Marc & Guindé, Loïc & Wery, Jacques & Doré, Thierry, 2017. "A framework for designing multi-functional agricultural landscapes: Application to Guadeloupe Island," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 316-329.
    17. Jeetendra P. Aryal, 2022. "Contribution of Agriculture to Climate Change and Low-Emission Agricultural Development in Asia and the Pacific," ADBI Working Papers 1340, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    18. Johnston, Robyn M. & Hoanh, Chu Thai & Lacombe, Guillaume & Noble, Andrew D. & Smakhtin, Vladimir & Suhardiman, Diana & Kam, Suan Pheng & Choo, P. S, 2009. "Scoping study on natural resources and climate change in Southeast Asia with a focus on agriculture. Final report," IWMI Research Reports H042414, International Water Management Institute.
    19. Sarah Rotz & Evan Fraser, 2015. "Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(3), pages 459-473, September.
    20. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:areint:364295. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://are-journal.com/are .

    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.