IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i16p6570-d398746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hemp Seed Production: Environmental Impacts of Cannabis sativa L. Agronomic Practices by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Carbon Footprint Methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Enio Campiglia

    (Departament of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, Tuscia University, Via San Camillo de Lellis snc, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Laura Gobbi

    (Departament of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Alvaro Marucci

    (Departament of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, Tuscia University, Via San Camillo de Lellis snc, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Mattia Rapa

    (Departament of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Roberto Ruggieri

    (Departament of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Giuliana Vinci

    (Departament of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

This paper evaluated the environmental impacts of different agronomic practices for a hemp seed crop grown in Mediterranean environment. The following agricultural variables have been considered: seven monoecious hemp varieties(Epsilon68 (E68), Fedora17 (F17), Felina32 (F32), Ferimon (Fe), Futura75 (F75), Santhica27 (S27), Uso31 (U31)), three plant densities (40, 80, and 120 plants m −2 ), and two levels of nitrogen (N) fertilization (50 and 100 kg ha −1 of N). Life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprint (CF) methodologies have been applied to evaluate impacts. In all hemp genotypes, the impacts grew by decreasing both N fertilizer and plants densities. The scenario most impacting was E68/F75/S27 genotypes cultivated with 50 kg ha −1 of N fertilizer and 40 plants m −2 , while the lowest one was Fe with 100 kg ha −1 of N fertilizer and 120 plants m −2 . The highest CF was found for E68/F75/S27 cultivated with 50 kg ha −1 of N fertilizer and 40 plants m −2 (18.720 kg CO 2 eq). This study highlighted the most environmentally sustainable agronomic practices to support farmer and decision maker in Cannabis sativa L. cultivation for seed production.

Suggested Citation

  • Enio Campiglia & Laura Gobbi & Alvaro Marucci & Mattia Rapa & Roberto Ruggieri & Giuliana Vinci, 2020. "Hemp Seed Production: Environmental Impacts of Cannabis sativa L. Agronomic Practices by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Carbon Footprint Methodologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6570-:d:398746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6570/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6570/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mario R. Giraldi-Díaz & Lorena De Medina-Salas & Eduardo Castillo-González & Rosario León-Lira, 2018. "Environmental Impact Associated with the Supply Chain and Production of Grounding and Roasting Coffee through Life Cycle Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Erik Roos Lindgreen & Roberta Salomone & Tatiana Reyes, 2020. "A Critical Review of Academic Approaches, Methods and Tools to Assess Circular Economy at the Micro Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-27, June.
    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. Mattia Rapa & Laura Gobbi & Roberto Ruggieri, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Electric Vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing Evaluation of Electricity Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Mattia Rapa & Salvatore Ciano, 2022. "A Review on Life Cycle Assessment of the Olive Oil Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Sinéad M. Madden & Alan Ryan & Patrick Walsh, 2022. "A Systems Thinking Approach Investigating the Estimated Environmental and Economic Benefits and Limitations of Industrial Hemp Cultivation in Ireland from 2017–2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, 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. Franco Fassio & Chiara Chirilli, 2023. "The Circular Economy and the Food System: A Review of Principal Measuring Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Neill Bartie & Lucero Cobos‐Becerra & Florian Mathies & Janardan Dagar & Eva Unger & Magnus Fröhling & Markus A. Reuter & Rutger Schlatmann, 2023. "Cost versus environment? Combined life cycle, techno‐economic, and circularity assessment of silicon‐ and perovskite‐based photovoltaic systems," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 993-1007, June.
    3. Marta Negri & Alessandra Neri & Enrico Cagno & Gabriele Monfardini, 2021. "Circular Economy Performance Measurement in Manufacturing Firms: A Systematic Literature Review with Insights for Small and Medium Enterprises and New Adopters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    4. Joanicjusz Nazarko & Ewa Chodakowska & Łukasz Nazarko, 2022. "Evaluating the Transition of the European Union Member States towards a Circular Economy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-24, May.
    5. Hinrika Droege & Andrea Raggi & Tomás B. Ramos, 2021. "Overcoming Current Challenges for Circular Economy Assessment Implementation in Public Sector Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Anna M. Walker & Alberto Simboli & Walter J. V. Vermeulen & Andrea Raggi, 2023. "A dynamic capabilities perspective on implementing the Circular Transition Indicators: A case study of a multi‐national packaging company," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 2679-2692, September.
    7. Robert H. W. Boyer & Agnieszka D. Hunka & Katherine A. Whalen, 2021. "Consumer Demand for Circular Products: Identifying Customer Segments in the Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Mariia Kravchenko & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Tim C. McAloone, 2020. "A Trade-Off Navigation Framework as a Decision Support for Conflicting Sustainability Indicators within Circular Economy Implementation in the Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, December.
    9. Robert H. W. Boyer & Ann‐Charlotte Mellquist & Mats Williander & Sara Fallahi & Thomas Nyström & Marcus Linder & Peter Algurén & Emanuela Vanacore & Agnieszka D. Hunka & Emma Rex & Katherine A. Whalen, 2021. "Three‐dimensional product circularity," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(4), pages 824-833, August.
    10. Michael Saidani & Harrison Kim, 2022. "Nexus Between Life Cycle Assessment, Circularity, and Sustainability Indicators—Part I: a Review," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1143-1156, September.
    11. Hana Trollman & James Colwill & Sandeep Jagtap, 2021. "A Circularity Indicator Tool for Measuring the Ecological Embeddedness of Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-23, August.
    12. Hinrika Droege & Andrea Raggi & Tomás B. Ramos, 2021. "Co‐development of a framework for circular economy assessment in organisations: Learnings from the public sector," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1715-1729, November.
    13. Purvis, Ben & Genovese, Andrea, 2023. "Better or different? A reflection on the suitability of indicator methods for a just transition to a circular economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    14. Bag, Surajit & Dhamija, Pavitra & Bryde, David J. & Singh, Rajesh Kumar, 2022. "Effect of eco-innovation on green supply chain management, circular economy capability, and performance of small and medium enterprises," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 60-72.
    15. Hugo Sakamoto & Larissa Thaís Bruschi & Luiz Kulay & Akebo Yamakami, 2023. "Using the Life Cycle Approach for Multiobjective Optimization in the Context of the Green Supply Chain: A Case Study of Brazilian Coffee," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-18, September.
    16. Piotr F. Borowski, 2021. "Innovation strategy on the example of companies using bamboo," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Lucyna Łȩkawska-Andrinopoulou & Georgios Tsimiklis & Sarah Leick & Manuel Moreno Nicolás & Angelos Amditis, 2021. "Circular Economy Matchmaking Framework for Future Marketplace Deployment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, May.
    18. Aitor Salesa & Raúl León & José Mariano Moneva, 2023. "Airlines practices to incorporate circular economy principles into the waste management system," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 443-458, January.
    19. Alessandra Neri & Marta Negri & Enrico Cagno & Simone Franzò & Vikas Kumar & Tommaso Lampertico & Carlo Andrea Bassani, 2023. "The role of digital technologies in supporting the implementation of circular economy practices by industrial small and medium enterprises," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4693-4718, November.
    20. Alexander Cimprich & Steven B. Young & Dieuwertje Schrijvers & Anthony Y. Ku & Christian Hagelüken & Patrice Christmann & Roderick Eggert & Komal Habib & Atsufumi Hirohata & Alan J. Hurd & Min-Ha Lee , 2023. "The role of industrial actors in the circular economy for critical raw materials: a framework with case studies across a range of industries," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 36(2), pages 301-319, June.

    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:16:p:6570-:d:398746. 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.