Comparative life cycle assessment for conventional and organic coffee cultivation in Vietnam

Abstract

Coffee production has been a major source of income in Vietnam since the early twentieth century. This research aims to identify the hot spots, estimate and compare the environmental effects of conventional intensive, conventional moderate and organic intensive coffee cultivation methods in Vietnam. Life cycle assessment was used for the determination of environmental effects and carbon footprint for different coffee cultivation methods from cradle to gate. Functional unit was defined as 1 kg of green Robusta coffee bean in Tan Ha Commune, Lam Ha District, Lam Dong Province. The environmental effects of coffee cultivation were compared by SimaPro 8.3.0, and the two impact assessment methods used were IPCC 2013 v1.03 and ReCiPe v1.13. The life cycle assessment results in hotspot assessment for fertilizer and pesticide application showed that the conventional intensive contributed 85.5% to global warming owing to the high input of manure, whereas conventional moderate and organic intensive contributed 80.4% and 68% to global warming, respectively, throughout the 30 years of cultivation. Moreover, endpoint impact result indicated that human health is most affected by coffee cultivation compared to resources and ecosystem. The carbon footprint result of 1-year average productivity showed that the conventional intensive (0.935 kg CO2e) method had the highest global warming potential in comparison with conventional moderate (0.729 kg CO2e) and organic intensive (0.644 kg CO2e) due to the highest amount of fertilizer application. This study demonstrated that conventional intensive has the highest impact on the environment, followed by conventional moderate and organic intensive. Therefore, it is important to optimize Vietnamese coffee cultivation methods in order to reduce the impact on the environment and human health, while producing sustainable coffee for the international and domestic market.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Agriculture census in Tan Ha commune, Lam Ha district, Lam Dong Province, Vietnam (2017)

  2. Amarasinghe UA, Hoanh CT, D’haeze D, Hung TQ (2015) Toward sustainable coffee production in Vietnam: more coffee with less water. Agric Syst 136:96–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Azevedo LB, Verones F, Henderson AD et al (2014) Freshwater eutrophication. LC-Impact Version 0.1. European Union

  4. BBC News (2014) How Vietnam became a coffee giant. Chris Summers. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25811724. Accessed 25 June 2018

  5. Bessou C, Basset-Mens C, Tran T, Benoist A (2012) LCA applied to perennial cropping systems: a review focused on the farm stage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):340–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradburn NM, Sudman S, Wansink B (2004) Asking questions: the definitive guide to questionnaire design--for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. Wiley

  7. Chayer JA, Kicak K (2015) Life cycle assessment of coffee consumption: comparison of single-serve coffee and bulk coffee brewing—final report. Quantis Canada, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  8. Coltro L, Mourad A, Oliveira P, Baddini J, Kletecke R (2006) Environmental profile of Brazilian green coffee (6 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):16–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Economic and social census in Tan Ha commune, Lam Ha district, Lam Dong Province (2017)

  10. Eriksen J, Vinther FP, Søegaard K (2004) Nitrate leaching and N 2-fixation in grasslands of different composition, age and management. J Agric Sci 142(2):141–151

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Food and agriculture information about Vietnam (2017) Food and agriculture organization of the Unites Nation (FAO). Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN). Retrieved from https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Coffee%20Annual_Hanoi_Vietnam_6-4-2018.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2018

  12. Hauschild M (2000) Estimating pesticide emissions for LCA of agricultural products. Agric Data Life Cycle Assess 22:70

    Google Scholar 

  13. Huijbregts MA, Steinmann ZJ, Elshout PM, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Zijp M, Hollander A, van Zelm R (2017) ReCiPe 2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(2):138–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O (2009) Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsule espresso). J Clean Prod 17(15):1351–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. International Organization for Standardization 14040 (2006) Environmental management life cycle assessment: principles and framework. British Standards Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. International Organization for Standardization 14044 (2006) Environmental management life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines. British Standards Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jacquemin L, Pontalier PY, Sablayrolles C (2012) Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the process industry: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1028–1041

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Killian B, Rivera L, Soto M, Navichoc D (2013) Carbon footprint across the coffee supply chain: the case of Costa Rican coffee. J Agric Sci Technol B 3(3B):151

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Krishna IM, Manickam V, Shah A, Davergave N (2017) Environmental management: science and engineering for industry. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  20. Liang L, Lal R, Ridoutt BG, Du Z, Wang D, Wang L, Wu W, Zhao G (2018) Life cycle assessment of China’s agroecosystems. Ecol Ind 88:341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Maeda K, Hanajima D, Morioka R, Toyoda S, Yoshida N, Osada T (2013) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission from the cattle manure composting process by use of a bulking agent. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 59(1):96–106

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Noponen MR, Edwards-Jones G, Haggar JP, Soto G, Attarzadeh N, Healey JR (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions in coffee grown with differing input levels under conventional and organic management. Agr Ecosyst Environ 151:6–15

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R (2005) Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Salomone R (2003) Life cycle assessment applied to coffee production: investigating environmental impacts to aid decision making for improvements at company level. Food Agric Environ 1(2):295–300

    Google Scholar 

  25. Specification PA (2008) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI British Standards, London. ISBN 978-0-580-64636-2

    Google Scholar 

  26. Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam in 2016 (2016) Agricuture, forestry and fishing. General Statistics Office Of Vietnam (GSO)

  27. Tan Ha agricultural report. Farmers Association of Tan Ha commune (2017)

  28. Vieira HD (2008) Coffee: the plant and its cultivation. In: Plant-parasitic nematodes of coffee. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Vörösmarty CJ, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289(5477):284–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wellman FL (1961) Coffee: botany, cultivation, and utilization. L Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  31. Werner W (2000) Fertilizers, Chap 6. Environmental Aspects. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry

  32. Werner PC, Gerstengarbe FW, Fraedrich K, Oesterle H (2000) Recent climate change in the North Atlantic/European sector. Int J Climatol 20(5):463–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wintgens JN (2004) Coffee: growing, processing, sustainable production. A guidebook for growers, processors, traders, and researchers. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Taiwan Ministry of Education for the funding to complete this research. We would like to show our gratitude to the Farmers Association of Tan Ha commune and the farmers who supported us during data collection stage.

Funding

This research was supported by Taiwan Ministry of Education for the research in Vietnam.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. H. Hu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: M. Abbaspour.

Appendix

Appendix

System boundaries

Figures 9, 10 and 11 present the system boundaries of CI, CM and OI.

Fig. 9
figure9

System boundary of CI coffee cultivation

Fig. 10
figure10

System boundary of CM coffee cultivation

Fig. 11
figure11

System boundary of OI coffee cultivation

Life cycle inventory data

Tables 3, 4 and 5 show the life cycle inventory data of CI, CM and OI cultivation.

Table 3 Inventory data of CI
Table 4 Inventory data of CM
Table 5 Inventory data of OI

Environmental hot spots of three cultivation methods

Figures 12, 13 and 14 show the environmental hot spots of three cultivation methods.

Fig. 12
figure12

Environmental hot spot of CI cultivation

Fig. 13
figure13

Environmental hot spot of CM cultivation

Fig. 14
figure14

Environmental hot spot of OI cultivation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trinh, L.T.K., Hu, A.H., Lan, Y.C. et al. Comparative life cycle assessment for conventional and organic coffee cultivation in Vietnam. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17, 1307–1324 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02539-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Environmental impact
  • Carbon footprint
  • Coffea canephora Robusta
  • Global warming potential
  • Human health
  • Sustainable coffee cultivation