IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v22y2018i6p1378-1388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatio‐Temporal Differentiation of Life Cycle Assessment Results for Average Perennial Crop Farm: A Case Study of Peruvian Cocoa Progression and Deforestation Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Giancarlo Raschio
  • Sergiy Smetana
  • Christian Contreras
  • Volker Heinz
  • Alexander Mathys

Abstract

The application of spatially and temporally explicit information to increase result precision is gaining momentum in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. It is vital for the assessment of environmental impact of perennial crops with non‐productive years, grown in combination with shade crops. Available studies rely on differentiated life cycle inventory data for the inputs in LCA or application of adapted impact assessment methodologies. This study uses the identification of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) hotspots (statistically significant clusters of farms with either high or low GHG emission values) estimated from average LCA results and assesses a relative deforestation risk in such hotspots. A total of 1892 farms in the Tocache province of San Martin region of Peru were evaluated between the year 2008 and 2010. Combination of average LCA results with farm size, age and deforestation progression allowed for the identification of areas and farms with a high relative risk of environmental impacts and potential deforestation. It was estimated that farms belonging to high‐GHG emission hotspots were twice more likely to expand their agricultural frontier and cause deforestation than farms in low‐GHG emission hotspots. Combining LCA with geo‐information systems and geostatistics is a viable path to explore the differentiation of assessment results, which might lead to faster, more accurate, and resource‐efficient ways to tackle environmental impacts while also accounting for important environmental impacts such as deforestation. Further research on the application of suggested approaches with other perennial crops and other geographical areas is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Giancarlo Raschio & Sergiy Smetana & Christian Contreras & Volker Heinz & Alexander Mathys, 2018. "Spatio‐Temporal Differentiation of Life Cycle Assessment Results for Average Perennial Crop Farm: A Case Study of Peruvian Cocoa Progression and Deforestation Issues," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1378-1388, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:22:y:2018:i:6:p:1378-1388
    DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12692
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jiec.12692?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. Sheetal Gavankar & Sarah Anderson & Arturo A. Keller, 2015. "Critical Components of Uncertainty Communication in Life Cycle Assessments of Emerging Technologies," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(3), pages 468-479, June.
    2. Godar, Javier & Persson, U. Martin & Tizado, E. Jorge & Meyfroidt, Patrick, 2015. "Towards more accurate and policy relevant footprint analyses: Tracing fine-scale socio-environmental impacts of production to consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 25-35.
    3. H. Scott Matthews & Lester Lave & Heather MacLean, 2002. "Life Cycle Impact Assessment: A Challenge for Risk Analysts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 853-860, October.
    4. Eskinder D. Gemechu & Christoph Helbig & Guido Sonnemann & Andrea Thorenz & Axel Tuma, 2016. "Import-based Indicator for the Geopolitical Supply Risk of Raw Materials in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(1), pages 154-165, February.
    5. Ivan T. Herrmann & Michael Z. Hauschild & Michael D. Sohn & Thomas E. McKone, 2014. "Confronting Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment Used for Decision Support," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 366-379, May.
    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. Yupeng Liu & Wei-Qiang Chen & Tao Lin & Lijie Gao, 2019. "How Spatial Analysis Can Help Enhance Material Stocks and Flows Analysis?," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, March.

    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. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    2. Carina Mueller & Christopher West & Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Bob Doherty, 2023. "Demand-Side Actors in Agricultural Supply Chain Sustainability: An Assessment of Motivations for Action, Implementation Challenges, and Research Frontiers," World, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Bruckner, Martin & Giljum, Stefan & Fischer, Günther & Tramberend, Sylvia & Börner, Jan, 2018. "The global cropland footprint of the non-food bioeconomy," Discussion Papers 271062, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    4. Stefano Cucurachi & Carlos Felipe Blanco & Bernhard Steubing & Reinout Heijungs, 2022. "Implementation of uncertainty analysis and moment‐independent global sensitivity analysis for full‐scale life cycle assessment models," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 374-391, April.
    5. Morena Bruno & Marianne Thomsen & Federico Maria Pulselli & Nicoletta Patrizi & Michele Marini & Dario Caro, 2019. "The carbon footprint of Danish diets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 489-507, October.
    6. Meghan Beck-O’Brien & Stefan Bringezu, 2021. "Biodiversity Monitoring in Long-Distance Food Supply Chains: Tools, Gaps and Needs to Meet Business Requirements and Sustainability Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    7. Koen Deconinck & Marion Jansen & Carla Barisone, 2023. "Fast and furious: the rise of environmental impact reporting in food systems," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(4), pages 1310-1337.
    8. Bruckner, Martin & Wood, Richard & Moran, Daniel & Kuschnig, Nikolas & Wieland, Hanspeter & Maus, Victor & Börner, Jan, 2019. "FABIO - The Construction of the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input-Output Model," Ecological Economic Papers 27, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    9. Cong, Rong-Gang & Stefaniak, Irena & Madsen, Bjarne & Dalgaard, Tommy & Jensen, Jørgen Dejgård & Nainggolan, Doan & Termansen, Mette, 2017. "Where to implement local biotech innovations? A framework for multi-scale socio-economic and environmental impact assessment of Green Bio-Refineries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 141-151.
    10. Carvalho Ribeiro, Sónia & Soares Filho, Britaldo & Cesalpino, Tiago & Araújo, Alessandra & Teixeira, Marina & Cardoso, Jussara & Figueiras, Danilo & Nunes, Felipe & Rajão, Raoni, 2024. "Bioeconomic markets based on the use of native species (NS) in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    11. J. Verschuur & E. E. Koks & J. W. Hall, 2022. "Ports’ criticality in international trade and global supply-chains," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Nils Thonemann & Anna Schulte & Daniel Maga, 2020. "How to Conduct Prospective Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies? A Systematic Review and Methodological Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, February.
    13. Wei, Jianlimin & Chen, Wei-Qiang & Chen, Chuke & Huang, Yuanyi & Tang, Linbin, 2024. "Evaluating the bulk commodities supply risk from the perspective of physical trade," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. Rickard Arvidsson & Anne‐Marie Tillman & Björn A. Sandén & Matty Janssen & Anders Nordelöf & Duncan Kushnir & Sverker Molander, 2018. "Environmental Assessment of Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Prospective LCA," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1286-1294, December.
    15. Shule Li & Jingjing Yan & Qiuming Pei & Jinghua Sha & Siyu Mou & Yong Xiao, 2019. "Risk Identification and Evaluation of the Long-term Supply of Manganese Mines in China Based on the VW-BGR Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    16. Berman, Nicolas & Couttenier, Mathieu & Leblois, Antoine & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2023. "Crop prices and deforestation in the tropics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    17. Bach, Vanessa & Finogenova, Natalia & Berger, Markus & Winter, Lisa & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2017. "Enhancing the assessment of critical resource use at the country level with the SCARCE method – Case study of Germany," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 283-299.
    18. Dieuwertje Schrijvers & Philippe Loubet & Guido Sonnemann, 2020. "Archetypes of Goal and Scope Definitions for Consistent Allocation in LCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Simon Glöser-Chahoud & Luis Tercero Espinoza & Rainer Walz & Martin Faulstich, 2016. "Taking the Step towards a More Dynamic View on Raw Material Criticality: An Indicator Based Analysis for Germany and Japan," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Arendarczyk, Bart & Alexander, Peter & Brown, Calum & Rounsevell, Mark, 2023. "The impact of UK food and bioenergy imports on global land use under future socioeconomic scenarios (UK-SSPs)," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334509, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.

    More about this item

    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:bla:inecol:v:22:y:2018:i:6:p:1378-1388. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    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.