IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9364-d443274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Product Sustainability of Conventional and Low-Carbon Apples in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Ik Kim

    (SMaRT-Eco Consulting Firm, 2F Gongik Building., 630 Gaepo-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06338, Korea)

  • Chan-young Song

    (Department of Climate and Environment, Sejong University, 209 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05006, Korea)

  • Eui-chan Jeon

    (Department of Climate and Environment, Sejong University, 209 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05006, Korea)

Abstract

Apple is Korea’s most representative fruit. This study calculated absolute and relative product sustainability through environmental and cost assessments on apples by cultivation farming. The ISO 14040 life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used as a method of environmental assessment. Primary data for one year, 2018, were collected for the environmental assessment of conventional and low-carbon farming. The eco-points of apples cultivated by conventional and low-carbon farming using the LCA 2.07 × 10 −3 and 1.17 × 10 −3 , respectively. The environmental impact of conventional apples was 78% higher than that of low-carbon apples. Cost assessment results show that every 1 kg of conventional and low-carbon apples costs USD 1.93 and USD 3.17, respectively, and their profits were USD 0.20 and USD 1.00, respectively. The total cost of conventional apples was lower than that of low-carbon apples, but its profit was one-fifth that of low-carbon apples. The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP)’s eco-efficiency method was used to calculate absolute sustainability, and the concept of factor X was introduced to evaluate relative sustainability. Absolute sustainability for conventional and low-carbon apples was 96.01 (USD/eco-point) and 853.03 (USD/eco-point), respectively. Low-carbon apples’ relative sustainability was computed in factor 8.89. Finally, if all farms that grow conventional apples shift to cultivating low-carbon apples, they can save 58,111 tons of carbon dioxide. This amount is at least 3.4% of the nation’s greenhouse gas reduction in the agricultural and livestock sectors. This study provides a clear reason for the agricultural sector to shift its cultivation method from conventional to eco-friendly farming, including low-carbon farming.

Suggested Citation

  • Ik Kim & Chan-young Song & Eui-chan Jeon, 2020. "Comparison of Product Sustainability of Conventional and Low-Carbon Apples in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9364-:d:443274
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9364/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9364/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kunnika Changwichan & Thapat Silalertruksa & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2018. "Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Bioplastics Production Systems and End-of-Life Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, March.
    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. Simone Blanc & Stefano Massaglia & Filippo Brun & Cristiana Peano & Angela Mosso & Nicole Roberta Giuggioli, 2019. "Use of Bio-Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Sebastian Spierling & Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam & Marina Mudersbach & Nico Becker & Christoph Herrmann & Hans-Josef Endres, 2020. "End-of-Life Options for Bio-Based Plastics in a Circular Economy—Status Quo and Potential from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Ana Fonseca & Edgar Ramalho & Ana Gouveia & Filipa Figueiredo & João Nunes, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of PLA Products: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Franziska Hesser & Daniela Groiß-Fürtner & Leona Woitsch & Claudia Mair-Bauernfeind, 2023. "Ex-Ante Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Dendromass Production: Conception and Experiences of an Innovation Project," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    5. David O. Kazmer & Davide Masato & Leonardo Piccolo & Kyle Puleo & Joshua Krantz & Varun Venoor & Austin Colon & Justin Limkaichong & Neil Dewar & Denis Babin & Cheryl Sayer, 2021. "Multivariate Modeling of Mechanical Properties for Hot Runner Molded Bioplastics and a Recycled Polypropylene Blend," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-23, July.
    6. Beata Michaliszyn-Gabryś & Janusz Krupanek & Mariusz Kalisz & Jonathan Smith, 2022. "Challenges for Sustainability in Packaging of Fresh Vegetables in Organic Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-29, April.
    7. Halayit Abrha & Jonnathan Cabrera & Yexin Dai & Muhammad Irfan & Abrham Toma & Shipu Jiao & Xianhua Liu, 2022. "Bio-Based Plastics Production, Impact and End of Life: A Literature Review and Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Escobar, Neus & Laibach, Natalie, 2021. "Sustainability check for bio-based technologies: A review of process-based and life cycle approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    9. Roel J. K. Helmes & Ana M. López-Contreras & Maud Benoit & Helena Abreu & Julie Maguire & Fiona Moejes & Sander W. K. van den Burg, 2018. "Environmental Impacts of Experimental Production of Lactic Acid for Bioplastics from Ulva spp ," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    10. Wellenreuther, Claudia & Wolf, André, 2020. "Innovative feedstocks in biodegradable bio-based plastics: A literature review," HWWI Research Papers 194, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    11. Taofeeq D. Moshood & Gusman Nawanir & Fatimah Mahmud & Fazeeda Mohamad & Mohd Hanafiah Ahmad & Airin Abdul Ghani, 2021. "Expanding Policy for Biodegradable Plastic Products and Market Dynamics of Bio-Based Plastics: Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Napapat Permpool & Awais Mahmood & Hafiz Usman Ghani & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2021. "An Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Bio-Based Diesel Substitutes: A Case Study in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-10, January.

    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:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9364-:d:443274. 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.