IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v486y2023ics0304380023002405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying ecological impacts: A comparative life cycle assessment of conventional and organic potato cultivation

Author

Listed:
  • Kumar, Rohit
  • Bhardwaj, Arvind
  • Singh, Lakhwinder Pal
  • Singh, Gurraj

Abstract

In order to meet the ever-increasing demand of food in the near future, the agriculture sector is anticipated to expand grain, vegetable, fiber, and biomass energy production within the restrictions of limited resources, while simultaneously minimizing the related Environmental Impacts (EIs). When focusing on potatoes specifically, it's important to note that a significant portion of global potato production occurs in developing countries. Nevertheless, existing literature reveals a noticeable gap in research dedicated to assessing the EIs of potato cultivation, as well as other staple crops. The current study aims at contrasting the EIs of organic and conventional potato cultivation in the northern plains of India. Taking two functional units (one hectare of land and one ton of potato produced), a cradle-to-farm gate Life Cycle Assessment approach using SimaPro 9.1.1 software was applied to explore various hotspots for highlighting and analyzing the various phases responsible for sparking off the severe EIs and compared for both cultivation systems. To confirm results from different perspectives, both ReCiPe Midpoint & Endpoint impact assessment methods were used which acknowledged that fertilization is the most significant phase for environmental impacts in conventional cultivation. Specifically, conventional cultivation contributes 2007.669 kg CO2 eq per hectare to Global Warming potential, whereas organic cultivation emits 1287.952 kg CO2 eq. Transitioning to organic cultivation leads to an average reduction of 35.76 percent across a range of 18 environmental impact categories Furthermore, the endpoint method reveals that 86 percent of the total score for conventional cultivation, which is 159.20, comes from human health-related indicators, whereas organic cultivation exhibits 27.6 percent less impact in this regard. Conducting a sensitivity analysis highlights fertilization as the most sensitive phase for conventional potato cultivation, whereas irrigation emerges as the critical phase for organic cultivation. The current study assists farmers in making decisions about chemical usage, energy management, and governments in improving the overall sustainability of cultivation systems through regulatory adjustments.

Suggested Citation

  • Kumar, Rohit & Bhardwaj, Arvind & Singh, Lakhwinder Pal & Singh, Gurraj, 2023. "Quantifying ecological impacts: A comparative life cycle assessment of conventional and organic potato cultivation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 486(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:486:y:2023:i:c:s0304380023002405
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380023002405
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110510?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shafiq, Muhammad & Rehman, Tahir, 2000. "The extent of resource use inefficiencies in cotton production in Pakistan's Punjab: an application of Data Envelopment Analysis," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 321-330, April.
    2. Tzilivakis, J. & Warner, D.J. & May, M. & Lewis, K.A. & Jaggard, K., 2005. "An assessment of the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) production in the UK," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 101-119, August.
    3. Nemecek, Thomas & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Dubois, David & Gaillard, Gérard & Schaller, Britta & Chervet, Andreas, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 233-245, 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. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    2. Seyyed Ali Noorhosseini & Christos A. Damalas, 2018. "RETRACTED: Environmental Impact of Peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) Production under Different Levels of Nitrogen Fertilization," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1, July.
    3. Taghavifar, Hamid & Mardani, Aref, 2015. "Energy consumption analysis of wheat production in West Azarbayjan utilizing life cycle assessment (LCA)," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 208-213.
    4. Šarauskis, Egidijus & Masilionytė, Laura & Juknevičius, Darius & Buragienė, Sidona & Kriaučiūnienė, Zita, 2019. "Energy use efficiency, GHG emissions, and cost-effectiveness of organic and sustainable fertilisation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1151-1160.
    5. Manogna R. L. & Aswini Kumar Mishra, 2022. "Agricultural production efficiency of Indian states: Evidence from data envelopment analysis," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 4244-4255, October.
    6. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Šarauskis, Egidijus & Romaneckas, Kęstutis & Jasinskas, Algirdas & Kimbirauskienė, Rasa & Naujokienė, Vilma, 2020. "Improving energy efficiency and environmental mitigation through tillage management in faba bean production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    9. Nemecek, Thomas & Dubois, David & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Gaillard, Gérard, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 217-232, March.
    10. Ghebru, Hosaena & Holden, Stein T., 2015. "Technical Efficiency and Productivity Differential Effects of Land Right Certification: A Quasi-Experimental Evidence," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 54(1), pages 1-31, February.
    11. Thiam, Abdourahmane & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Rivas, Teodoro E., 2001. "Technical efficiency in developing country agriculture: a meta-analysis," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 235-243, September.
    12. Władysław Szempliński & Bogdan Dubis & Krzysztof Michał Lachutta & Krzysztof Józef Jankowski, 2021. "Energy Optimization in Different Production Technologies of Winter Triticale Grain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-12, February.
    13. Koirala, Bishwa S. & Bohara, Alok K. & Devkota, Satis & Upadhyaya, Kamal P., 2019. "Community managed hydropower, spillover effect and agricultural productivity: The case of rural Nepal," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 67-74.
    14. Basanta R. Dhungana & Peter L. Nuthall & Gilbert V. Nartea, 2004. "Measuring the economic inefficiency of Nepalese rice farms using data envelopment analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(2), pages 347-369, June.
    15. Ozkan, Burhan & Ceylan, R. Figen & Kizilay, Hatice, 2011. "Comparison of energy inputs in glasshouse double crop (fall and summer crops) tomato production," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1639-1644.
    16. Agnes Gold & Stefan Gold, 2019. "Drivers of Farm Efficiency and Their Potential for Development in a Changing Agricultural Setting in Kerala, India," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(4), pages 855-880, September.
    17. Imran, Muhammad Ali & Ali, Asghar & Ashfaq, Muhammad & Hassan, Sarfraz & Culas, Richard & Ma, Chunbo, 2019. "Impact of climate smart agriculture (CSA) through sustainable irrigation management on Resource use efficiency: A sustainable production alternative for cotton," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Pritpal Singh & Gurdeep Singh & G. P. S. Sodhi, 2022. "Data envelopment analysis based optimization for improving net ecosystem carbon and energy budget in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivation: methods and a case study of north-western India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2079-2119, February.
    19. Nodjitigje DJIMASRA, 2010. "Mesure de l'efficacité technique des pays africains producteurs du coton : une application de la méthode Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 1207, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    20. Olfa Gharsallah & Claudio Gandolfi & Arianna Facchi, 2021. "Methodologies for the Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Production Systems, with a Focus on Rice: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, October.

    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:eee:ecomod:v:486:y:2023:i:c:s0304380023002405. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    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.