Abstract
In order to develop sustainable production of greenhouse crops, the economic, energy, and environmental aspects of production should be considered. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic, energy, and environmental (3E) sustainability of cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper production in greenhouses by performing material flow cost accounting (MFCA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) material and methods. Calculating the economic and energy value of losses in agricultural sustainability assessment studies is not common. Using the LCA method alone does not allow us to calculate the monetary and energy value of waste. If this method is used simultaneously with MFCA, this gap will be filled. The system boundary for LCA was from cradle to farm, and for MFCA, foreground processes were considered. The production of each crop was compared at the level of 1000 m2 during 1 year. Data were collected through questionnaire-based interviews. The gross value of production for cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper were 8982, 16387, and 17610 $/1000 m2, respectively. The negative production of cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper were 702, 718, and 449 $/1000 m2, respectively. The benefit-to-cost ratio in the production of cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper was calculated as 2.8, 5.17, and 5.8, respectively. The economic productivity in the production of cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper was calculated at 10.25, 7, and 4.4 kg/$. Labor cost was the main cost in the production of all three crops. The total input energy for the production of cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper was estimated to be 99.4, 123.1, and 164.6 GJ/1000 m2, respectively. Negative products in the production of cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper were obtained at − 24.2, − 23.9, and − 13.5 GJ/1000 m2, respectively. The energy productivity of cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper was calculated as 0.23, 0.26, and 0.08 kg/MJ, respectively. The specific energy indices were 4.32, 3.79, and 12.20 MJ/kg for cucumber, tomato, and bell pepper, respectively. The energy ratio in the production of tomato (0.02) was higher than bell pepper (− 0.02) and cucumber (− 0.06). From the perspective of energy, electricity was recognized as the hotspot for the production of three crops. Global warming (GWP100a), ozone layer depletion (ODP), acidification (AC), and eutrophication (EP) indices were calculated for all three crops. Tomato production was ranked first in all impact categories. On-farm emissions and electricity consumption were identified as environmental hotspots. The subsidized price of electricity, natural gas, and chemical fertilizers has led to their excessive use in the production of greenhouse plants. It can be concluded that bell pepper has the best performance from an economic point of view. However, its production is not justified in terms of energy. Tomato was ranked first in terms of energy, and cucumber was ranked first in terms of low environmental impacts. The production of these plants with energy and chemical fertilizer subsidies is currently cost-effective. If the prices are corrected, the production of these plants will face serious challenges. Producing electricity from sunlight and mechanizing production processes can be a solution to these challenges.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
References
Afshar RK, Dekamin M (2022) Sustainability assessment of corn production in conventional and conservation tillage systems. J Clean Prod 351:131508
Ahamed MS, Guo H, Taylor L, Tanino K (2019) Heating demand and economic feasibility analysis for year-round vegetable production in Canadian Prairies greenhouses. Inf Process Agric 6(1):81–90
Arieftiara D, Theresa RM, Sari R (2021) Sustainability in health service industry: the implementation of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) as an eco-efficient analysis. J Southeast Asian Res 2021:747009
Bajželj B, Richards KS, Allwood JM, Smith P, Dennis JS, Curmi E, Gilligan CA (2014) Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat Clim Chang 4(10):924–929
Balmford A, Amano T, Bartlett H, Chadwick D, Collins A, Edwards D, Field R, Garnsworthy P, Green R, Smith P (2018) The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat Sustain 1(9):477–485
Chen X, Cui Z, Fan M, Vitousek P, Zhao M, Ma W, Wang Z, Zhang W, Yan X, Yang J (2014) Producing more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature 514(7523):486–489
Datta S, Singh J, Singh S, Singh J (2016) Earthworms, pesticides and sustainable agriculture: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(9):8227–8243
Dechampai D, Homrossukon S, Wongthatsanekorn W, Ekkachai K (2021) Applying material flow cost accounting and two-dimensional, irregularly shaped cutting stock problems in the lingerie manufacturing industry. Appl Sci 11(7):3142
Dekamin M, Veisi H, Safari E, Liaghati H, Khoshbakht K, Dekamin MG (2015) Life cycle assessment for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) production systems: a case study for Iran. J Clean Prod 91:43–55
Dekamin M, Barmaki M (2018) Selecting the best environmental friendly oilseed crop by using life cycle assessment, water footprint and analytic hierarchy process methods. J Clean Prod 198:1239–1250
Dekamin M, Barmaki M (2019) Implementation of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) in soybean production. J Clean Prod 210:459–465
Dekamin M, Kheiralipour K, Afshar RK (2022) Energy, economic, and environmental assessment of coriander seed production using material flow cost accounting and life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:83469–83482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21585-0
Gallejones P, Pardo G, Aizpurua A, Del Prado A (2015) Life cycle assessment of first-generation biofuels using a nitrogen crop model. Sci Total Environ 505:1191–1201
Heidari M, Omid M (2011) Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenhouse vegetable productions in Iran. Energy 36(1):220–225
Henryson K, Kätterer T, Tidåker P, Sundberg C (2020) Soil N2O emissions, N leaching and marine eutrophication in life cycle assessment–A comparison of modelling approaches. Sci Total Environ 725:138332
Hesampour R, Taki M, Fathi R, Hassani M, Halog A (2022) Energy-economic-environmental cycle evaluation comparing two polyethylene and polycarbonate plastic greenhouses in cucumber production (from production to packaging and distribution). Sci Total Environ 828:154232
Ho JY, Ng DK, Wan YK, Andiappan V (2021) Synthesis of wastewater treatment plant based on minimal waste generation cost: a material flow cost accounting (MFCA) approach. Process Saf Environ Prot 148:559–578
Hosseini-Fashami F, Motevali A, Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Hashemi SJ, Chau K-W (2019) Energy-Life cycle assessment on applying solar technologies for greenhouse strawberry production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 116:109411
Ipcc, IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Prepared by the national greenhouse gas inventories programme. IGES, Japan
ISO (2006) Environmental management: life cycle assessment; principles and framework. ISO 14040. edn: 2 Number of pages: 20 Technical Committee: ISO/TC207/SC5ICS:13.020.1013.020.60
ISO (2011) Environmental management-material flow cost accounting-general framework. ISO 14051. edn: 1 number of pages: 38 Technical Committee: ISO/TC207/SC1ICS:13.020.10
Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S, Mousazadeh H (2013) Environmental impact assessment of open field and greenhouse strawberry production. Eur J Agron 50:29–37
Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S, Omid M, Mousazadeh H, Clark S (2014) Environmental impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses using life cycle assessment and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. J Clean Prod 73:183–192
Kokubu K, Kitada H (2015) Material flow cost accounting and existing management perspectives. J Clean Prod 108:1279–1288
Mankong P, Fantke P, Phenrat T, Mungkalasiri J, Gheewala SH, Prapaspongsa T (2022) Characterizing country-specific human and ecosystem health impact and damage cost of agricultural pesticides: the case for Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 27(12):1334–1351
Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Rafiee S, Mohammadkashi N, Chau KW, Mostashari-Rad F (2022) Principle of life cycle assessment and cumulative exergy demand for biodiesel production: farm-to-combustion approach. Synergy development in renewables assisted multi-carrier systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 127–169
Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Rafiee S, Hosseini-Fashami F, Chau KW (2021) Artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system in energy modeling of agricultural products. In: Predictive modelling for energy management and power systems engineering. Elsevier, pp 299–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817772-3.00011-2
Naderi SA, Dehkordi AL, Taki M (2019) Energy and environmental evaluation of greenhouse bell pepper production with life cycle assessment approach. Environ Sustain Indicators 3:100011
Neves SA, Marques AC (2022) Drivers and barriers in the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy. J Clean Prod 341:130865
Nyide CJ (2016) Material flow cost accounting as a tool for improved resource efficiency in the hotel sector: a case of emerging market. Risk Gov Control: Financ Mark Inst (Online). https://doi.org/10.22495/rcgv6i4c3art8
Pahlavan R, Omid M, Akram A (2012) Energy input–output analysis and application of artificial neural networks for predicting greenhouse basil production. Energy 37(1):171–176
Sahu AK, Padhy R, Das D, Gautam A (2021) Improving financial and environmental performance through MFCA: a SME case study. J Clean Prod 279:123751
Salehpour T, Khanali M, Rajabipour A (2020) Environmental impact assessment for ornamental plant greenhouse: life cycle assessment approach for primrose production. Environ Pollut 266:115258
Sariatli F (2017) Linear economy versus circular economy: a comparative and analyzer study for optimization of economy for sustainability. Visegr J Bioecon Sustain Dev 6(1):31–34
StatisticalCenter I (2020) Selected results of the survey for updating the national greenhouses frame autumn, the Year 2020 (2020 ed., Vol. 1). Statistical Center of Iran. https://www.amar.org.ir/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u8_PLT4lhQY%3d&portalid=1
Torrellas M, Antón A, Ruijs M, Victoria NG, Stanghellini C, Montero JI (2012) Environmental and economic assessment of protected crops in four European scenarios. 28:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.012
van Tuyll A, Boedijn A, Brunsting M, Barbagli T, Blok C, Stanghellini C (2022) Quantification of material flows: a first step towards integrating tomato greenhouse horticulture into a circular economy. J Clean Prod 379(Part 1):134665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134665
Zeng H, Zhou Z, Xiao X (2021) MFCA extension from a life cycle perspective: methodical refinements and use case. Resour Policy 74:101507
Zhen H, Gao W, Jia L, Qiao Y, Ju X (2020) Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of alternative greenhouse vegetable production farms in peri-urban Beijing, China. J Clean Prod 269:122380
Funding
This work was supported by Malayer University under contract number 369–9-84.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MD: conceptualization, methodology, and software. TS: writing—original draft preparation and software. AA: visualization and validation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
All authors mutually agreed to publish the work in this journal.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Ilhan Ozturk
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Dekamin, M., Sadeghimofrad, T. & Ahmadloo, A. Energy, economic, and environmental (3E) assessment of the major greenhouse crops: MFCA-LCA approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31, 21894–21912 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32576-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32576-8