IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v22y2020i3d10.1007_s10668-018-0299-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon and water footprint of Robusta coffee through its production chains in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Tanomlap Ratchawat

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi)

  • Sureerat Panyatona

    (Chumphon Horticultural Research Center)

  • Parnhathai Nopchinwong

    (Chumphon Horticultural Research Center)

  • Amnat Chidthaisong

    (Ministry of Education
    King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi)

  • Siriluk Chiarakorn

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi)

Abstract

This study investigated the carbon footprint (CFP) and water footprint (WFP) of Robusta coffee products in the boundary of business-to-business. The scope of work included coffee cultivation, roasted coffee and ground coffee production. The activity data were collected from 180 coffee farms in Chumphon Province (Thailand) in 2015. A national guideline for CFP of products and a guideline of WFP analysis by Hoekstra et al. (The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard, Water Footprint Network, Enschede, 2011) were used in this study. The functional unit was 1 kg of each coffee product. In addition, the influences of soil types, crop management, size of coffee farm and co-cultivation of fruits on CFP of coffee product were examined. The results indicated that the CFP of Robusta coffee products was 0.40 ± 0.12 kgCO2e/kg of coffee cherry, 0.55 ± 0.08 kgCO2e/kg of roasted coffee and 0.56 ± 0.08 kgCO2e/kg of ground coffee. Almost 70% of GHG emissions came from use of chemical fertilizer, followed by LPG in roasting process and electricity in grinding process. Crop management and size of planted area had significant impacts on the CFP of coffee cherry. Co-cultivation with other fruits in large-scale planted area could significantly reduce the CFP. The WFPs of Robusta coffee were 10 m3/kg of coffee cherry and 27 m3/kg of roasted and ground coffee. Wastewater from coffee inspection, fermentation, pulping and washing accounted for 68% of total water consumption. Optimal fertilizer application, using high energy efficiency burner during roasting, co-cultivation with fruit trees and rejuvenation were suggested as appropriate mitigation measures for reduction in the CFP and WFP of Robusta coffee. Graphical abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Tanomlap Ratchawat & Sureerat Panyatona & Parnhathai Nopchinwong & Amnat Chidthaisong & Siriluk Chiarakorn, 2020. "Carbon and water footprint of Robusta coffee through its production chains in Thailand," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2415-2429, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-018-0299-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-018-0299-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-018-0299-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-018-0299-4?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yan Sun & Lin Yan & Ang Zhang & Jianfeng Yang & Qingyun Zhao & Xingjun Lin & Zixiao Zhang & Lifang Huang & Xiao Wang & Xiaoyang Wang, 2024. "Effects of Grafting on the Structure and Function of Coffee Rhizosphere Microbiome," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Magdalena Karwacka & Agnieszka Ciurzyńska & Andrzej Lenart & Monika Janowicz, 2020. "Sustainable Development in the Agri-Food Sector in Terms of the Carbon Footprint: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-17, August.

    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:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-018-0299-4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.