Skip to main content
Log in

Energy, economic, and environmental (3E) assessment of the major greenhouse crops: MFCA-LCA approach

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Datta S, Singh J, Singh S, Singh J (2016) Earthworms, pesticides and sustainable agriculture: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(9):8227–8243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekamin M, Barmaki M (2019) Implementation of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) in soybean production. J Clean Prod 210:459–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heidari M, Omid M (2011) Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenhouse vegetable productions in Iran. Energy 36(1):220–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kokubu K, Kitada H (2015) Material flow cost accounting and existing management perspectives. J Clean Prod 108:1279–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neves SA, Marques AC (2022) Drivers and barriers in the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy. J Clean Prod 341:130865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by Malayer University under contract number 369–9-84.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MD: conceptualization, methodology, and software. TS: writing—original draft preparation and software. AA: visualization and validation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Majid Dekamin.

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.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 462 KB)

Supplementary file2 (XLSX 1156 KB)

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32576-8

Keywords

Navigation