A Life Cycle Assessment of Organic and Chemical Fertilizers for Coffee Production to Evaluate Sustainability toward the Energy-Environment-Economic Nexus in Indonesia

被引:16
作者
Rahmah, Devi Maulida [1 ,2 ]
Putra, Agusta Samodra [3 ,4 ]
Ishizaki, Riaru [4 ]
Noguchi, Ryozo [4 ,5 ]
Ahamed, Tofael [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tsukuba, Grad Sch Life & Environm Sci, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058572, Japan
[2] Univ Padjadjaran, Fac Agr Ind Technol, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
[3] Natl Res & Innovat Agcy, Res Ctr Sustainable Prod Syst & Life Cycle Assess, South Tangerang 15341, Indonesia
[4] Univ Tsukuba, Fac Life & Environm Sci, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058572, Japan
[5] Kyoto Univ, Fac Grad Sch Agr, Div Environm Sci & Technol, Lab Agr Syst Engn, Kyoto 6068502, Japan
关键词
sustainability assessment; environmental impact; economic performance; energy analysis; coffee cultivation; organic fertilizer; chemical fertilizer; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; CARBON FOOTPRINT; FARMING SYSTEMS; OPTIMIZATION; SENSITIVITY; STRATEGIES; EFFICIENCY; PROVINCE; INPUTS; APPLE;
D O I
10.3390/su14073912
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Coffee is an important agricultural commodity that is branded according to its environmental criteria in the global market. Therefore, Indonesia's coffee production system needs to be investigated to meet the demand for eco-labeling, which has become a consumer preference. This study aims to assess the comprehensive sustainability evaluation of coffee production nurtured by an organic fertilizing system (OFS), chemical-organic fertilizing system (COFS), and chemical fertilizing system (CFS) that focuses on the energy-environment-economic nexus. A life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost analysis (LCC), and energy analysis were performed as methods to evaluate the environmental impact, economic performance, and energy requirement analysis. The results indicated that the OFS had superior performance in two sustainability aspects: resulting in the lowest environmental damage and generating the highest economic benefit. Simultaneously, COFS shows the highest sustainability performance as it consumes the least energy. In contrast, CFS indicated the lowest sustainability performance in all aspects: highest environmental impact, lowest economic benefit, and highest energy consumption. Therefore, OFS is strongly recommended to be applied broadly, considering its environmental and economic superiority. Consequently, massive OFS application was followed by higher energy consumption. Alternatively, COFS can be considered for application due to its higher energy performance, even though it can potentially result in higher environmental damage and lower economic benefit. However, the government should explicitly provide some effort for the broad application of OFS in financial and assistance support since the shifting process needs more time to adapt.
引用
收藏
页数:28
相关论文
共 53 条
  • [1] Integrating diversity of smallholder coffee cropping systems in environmental analysis
    Acosta-Alba, Ivonne
    Boissy, Joachim
    Chia, Eduardo
    Andrieu, Nadine
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2020, 25 (02) : 252 - 266
  • [2] A model calculation of the carbon footprint of agricultural products: The case of Slovenia
    Al-Mansour, F.
    Jejcic, V.
    [J]. ENERGY, 2017, 136 : 7 - 15
  • [3] Sustainability assessment of rice production systems in Mazandaran Province, Iran with emergy analysis and fuzzy logic
    Amini, Sherwin
    Rohani, Abbas
    Aghkhani, Mohammad Hossein
    Abbaspour-Fard, Mohammad Hossein
    Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza
    [J]. SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND ASSESSMENTS, 2020, 40
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2006, ISO14040 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework, DOI DOI 10.3403/30151316.
  • [5] Energy flow and life cycle impact assessment of coffee-pepper production systems: An evaluation of conventional, integrated and organic farms in India
    Basavalingaiah, K.
    Paramesh, Venkatesh
    Parajuli, Ranjan
    Girisha, H. C.
    Shivaprasad, M.
    Vidyashree, G. V.
    Thoma, Greg
    Hanumanthappa, M.
    Yogesh, G. S.
    Misra, Shiva Dhar
    Bhat, Shripad
    Irfan, M. M.
    Rajanna, G. A.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2022, 92
  • [6] Biernat-Jarka A., 2018, Acta Scientiarum Polonorum - Oeconomia, V17, P39
  • [7] Bosona T., 2019, Bioresource Technology Reports, V6, P54, DOI [10.1016/j.biteb.2019.02, DOI 10.1016/J.BITEB.2019.02]
  • [8] Sustainable Production of Robusta Coffee under a Changing Climate: A 10-Year Monitoring of Fertilizer Management in Coffee Farms in Vietnam and Indonesia
    Byrareddy, Vivekananda
    Kouadio, Louis
    Mushtaq, Shahbaz
    Stone, Roger
    [J]. AGRONOMY-BASEL, 2019, 9 (09):
  • [9] Environmental profile of Brazilian green coffee
    Coltro, L
    Mourad, AL
    Oliveira, PAPLV
    Baddini, JPOA
    Kletecke, RM
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2006, 11 (01) : 16 - 21
  • [10] Calculation of the carbon footprint for family farms using the Farm Accountancy Data Network: A case from Lithuania
    Dabkiene, Vida
    Balezentis, Tomas
    Streimikiene, Dalia
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020, 262 (262)