Evaluating the Sustainability of Sugar Beet Production Using Life Cycle Assessment Approach

被引:0
作者
Azizpanah, Amir [1 ]
Taki, Morteza [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ilam, Coll Agr, Dept Mech Biosyst, Ilam, Iran
[2] Agr Sci & Nat Resources Univ Khuzestan, Fac Agr Engn & Rural Dev, Dept Agr Machinery & Mechanizat Engn, Mollasani, Iran
关键词
Energy efficiency; Sustainability; Production cost; Cobb-Douglas model; ENERGY-USE EFFICIENCY; ECONOMIC-ANALYSIS; WHEAT; FRUIT;
D O I
10.1007/s12355-024-01488-9
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
This study aimed to investigate the energy consumption and Global Warming Potential (GWP) of sugar beet production in Cherdavel (33.7018 degrees N, 47.0194 degrees E in Ilam province) and Islamabad (34.1132 degrees N, 46.5279 degrees E in Kermanshah province), Iran. Data were collected through detailed questionnaires and in-depth interviews with farmers. Environmental impacts were assessed using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, which evaluates the environmental effects throughout its entire life cycle, from raw material extraction to disposal. The CML-IA baseline V3.08/EU25 method was used for this assessment, providing a standardized framework for impact categories such as global warming, abiotic depletion, and toxicity. The results indicated that energy consumption for sugar beet production in Cherdavel and Islamabad regions was 55,308.42 and 54,871.22 MJha-1, respectively. The energy efficiency index was calculated as 17.01 and 14.69 for Cherdavel and Islamabad, respectively. The economic analysis showed that in Cherdavel and Islamabad, the profit-to-cost ratio was 2.05 and 1.89, and the economic productivity of production was 11.41 and 10.53 kg$-1, respectively. The results of modeling with the Cobb-Douglas function, a common econometric model used to represent the relationship between inputs and outputs, showed that the coefficient of determination (R2) in Cherdavel and Islamabad regions was 0.93 and 0.96, respectively. This high R2 value indicates a strong correlation between the input variables and the output (sugar beet yield), suggesting that the model accurately represents the production process. The results showed that Global Warming Potential (GWP) in Cherdavel and Islamabad was 54.05 and 44.47 (kg CO2eq) per ton of sugar beet production, respectively. These values are relatively high compared to other crops, indicating significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with sugar beet production in these regions. Abiotic Depletion for Fossil fuels (ADF) was 435.69 and 363.19 MJ, Human Toxicity (HT) was 21.53 and 16.87 (1,4-DB eq kg), and Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity (MAE) was 23,543.82 and 18,306.06 (1,4-DB eq kg) in Cherdavel and Islamabad, respectively. These metrics highlight the substantial environmental impacts of sugar beet production with Cherdavel showing higher values in most categories. Despite these environmental concerns, both regions demonstrated favorable economic productivity and profit-to-cost ratios, suggesting that sugar beet production remains economically viable.
引用
收藏
页码:78 / 93
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Life cycle assessment of nine representative agroindustrial systems of sugar production in Mexico
    Patricia Guereca, Leonor
    Padilla-Rivera, Alejandro
    Aguilar-Rivera, Noe
    FOOD AND BIOPRODUCTS PROCESSING, 2022, 131 : 164 - 175
  • [22] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost of sugar plants evaporators
    Cardoso Santos, Lino Jose
    Tenorio, Jorge Alberto S.
    REM-REVISTA ESCOLA DE MINAS, 2010, 63 (01) : 179 - 184
  • [23] Visualization of the Sustainability Level of Crude Palm Oil Production: A Life Cycle Approach
    Omran, Najat
    Sharaai, Amir Hamzah
    Hashim, Ahmad Hariza
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (04) : 1 - 16
  • [24] Biodiesel Production in a Semiarid Environment: A Life Cycle Assessment Approach
    Biswas, Wahidul K.
    Barton, Louise
    Carter, Daniel
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 45 (07) : 3069 - 3074
  • [25] Sustainable Manufacturing Assessment: Approach and the Trend Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis
    Gbededo, Mijoh
    Liyanage, Kapila
    ADVANCES IN MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY XXXI, 2017, 6 : 383 - 388
  • [26] Biopolymer production and end of life comparisons using life cycle assessment
    Hottle, Troy A.
    Bilec, Melissa M.
    Landis, Amy E.
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2017, 122 : 295 - 306
  • [27] Barriers to BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Buildings: An Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach
    Onososen, Adetayo
    Musonda, Innocent
    BUILDINGS, 2022, 12 (03)
  • [28] The Use of Life Cycle Techniques in the Assessment of Sustainability
    Gundes, Selin
    URBAN PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (UPADSD), 2016, 216 : 916 - 922
  • [29] Life cycle sustainability assessment method for concrete
    Choi, Wonyoung
    Tae, Sungho
    ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2024,
  • [30] Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment
    Sonia Valdivia
    Jana Gerta Backes
    Marzia Traverso
    Guido Sonnemann
    Stefano Cucurachi
    Jeroen B. Guinée
    Thomas Schaubroeck
    Matthias Finkbeiner
    Noemie Leroy-Parmentier
    Cássia Ugaya
    Claudia Peña
    Alessandra Zamagni
    Atsushi Inaba
    Milena Amaral
    Markus Berger
    Jolanta Dvarioniene
    Tatiana Vakhitova
    Catherine Benoit-Norris
    Martina Prox
    Rajendra Foolmaun
    Mark Goedkoop
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2021, 26 : 1900 - 1905