at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 56e62

Contents lists available

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of protected crops: an Italian case study

Maurizio Cellura a, Sonia Longo a, Marina Mistretta b,*

aDipartimento dell’Energia, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, ItalybDipartimento Patrimonio Architettonico e Urbanistico (PAU), Università degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria, Via Melissari, 89124 Reggio Calabria, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 May 2011Received in revised form14 October 2011Accepted 14 October 2011Available online 25 October 2011

Keywords:LCAGreenhousesEnergyFoodSustainable production and consumption(SPC)

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 091 23861931; faE-mail address: marina.mistretta@unirc.it (M. Mis

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.021

a b s t r a c t

In this paper a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of protected crops was carried out. In particular, energy andenvironmental performances of peppers, melons, tomatoes, cherry tomatoes, and zucchini in differenttypologies of greenhouses (tunnel and pavilion) were assessed. The study aimed at assessing the eco-profile of each product and the share of each life-cycle step on the total environmental impacts. Therelated process flow chart, the relevant mass and energy flows and the key environmental issues wereidentified for each product. Collection of primary data was conducted by means of a detailed ques-tionnaire distributed to a producer company in southern Italy. The analysis was developed according tothe LCA standards of the ISO 14040 series.

The results showed that for all the examined vegetables the packaging step and the greenhousestructures have a relevant share in the environmental impact distribution. Further tunnel and paviliongreenhouses are characterized by comparable ecoprofiles and both of them are characterized by lowerenergy consumptions than greenhouses in the North of Europe, due to the non-use of auxiliary heatingsystems in the former.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years the food sector has increased its economic andpolitical relevance, attracting the attention of policy makers (Fosteret al., 2006).

Food production and consumption has been detected asa system with very varied energy use and carbon emissionsbetween sectors. There are positive opportunities in looking moreclosely at connections between players in the food system that holda lot of influence along the production chain. The food productionand consumption system could be improved by means of a set ofmechanisms, some of which include:

- To address the consumer demand for food goods and servicesto the creation of a lower carbon food system-based market(for example with carbon labeling of food goods).

- A regulatory incentive structure that leads to whole systemsrealignment.

To achieve system change, a set of suitable policies will berequired and the understanding of how energy is used and

x: þ39 091 484425.tretta).

All rights reserved.

greenhouse gases are emitted in food production and consumption.Gaining a good understanding of that represents a challenge.Development and implementation of policy-based tools built oncurrent knowledge needs to take place, close to further researchbased on LCA and the interconnections of food related energy use.

The above considerations, together with current consumptionpatterns, have involved an increasing interest to report the envi-ronmental performance of food products (Mintcheva, 2005).

The European study on the Environmental Impact of Products(EIPRO) showed that the “food and drink” sector involves 20e30%of the total environmental impacts of EU consumption, with regardto global warming, acidification, photochemical ozone formation,and eutrophication (Tukker et al., 2006; Schau and Fet, 2008). Thus“food and drink” is a priority sector within Sustainable Productionand Consumption (SCP) policies developed by the EuropeanCommission. SCP promotes the assessment of the environmentalperformance of these products’ supply chains, the identification ofimprovements and the communication of environmental infor-mation to consumers (European Commission, 2007).

Depending on the large number of processes, of the operationalunits and of the companies that contribute to the overall productchain, the assessment of thewhole chain burdens becomes relevantto improve the energy and environmental performances of foodproducts (Cellura et al., 2010; Meisterling et al., 2009). In thiscontext, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, as described

M. Cellura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 56e62 57

by the international standards of series ISO (2006a,b) 14040,represents the methodological “backbone” of sustainable produc-tion and consumption patterns, allowing the gathering of data onenvironmental issues to be applied to restructure the supply chainin order to improve its global environmental performances(Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2001).

LCA methodology is becoming more and more important in theagro-food sector, as it allows to assess the environmental perfor-mances of products, from their very beginning, throughout theirwhole life cycle and to identify differences in resource consumptionand environmental impacts among different systems with equiv-alent functions (Beccali et al., 2009; Blengini and Busto, 2009). Forthese reason, it can be used as a decision tool to support the choicesof the following groups of stakeholders:

- The producers of the investigated product, to improve theecoprofile of the related production system.

- The consumers of the investigated product to address theirpurchasing decisions.

- Policy makers, to inform longer-term strategy.

The extension of the assessment to the entire food chain anal-ysis allows the identification of “where” and “how” the resourcesare consumed and the emissions occur.

This approach can ensure that the environmental impactsthroughout the life cycle are treated in an integrated way andconsequently they are not just shifted from one step to another.

Besides, by means of organization specific life cycle-based tools,as Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and EnvironmentalProducts Declaration (EPD), food producers can support the choiceof consumers with environmental information on their products(European Commission, 2001; IEC, 2008).

Starting from the above considerations, the authors carried outa LCA studyaimedat investigating the environmental performances ofthe food sector, with a particular focus on the cultivation of protectedcrops in theMediterranean area. In particular, the study was aimed atassessing the ecoprofile of peppers, melons, tomatoes, cherry toma-toes, and zucchini in different typologies of greenhouses and thecontributionof each life-cycle stepon the total environmental impacts.Further thekeyenvironmental issueswere identified for eachproduct.

2. Materials and methods

The following energy and environmental analysis was devel-oped in compliance with the international standards of series14040 (ISO, 2006a,b).

2.1. Goal and scope definition

The ecoprofile of five protected crops was estimated (tomatoes,cherry tomatoes, peppers, zucchinis and melons), including indi-rect environmental impact related to energy source generation,water and raw materials supply. Energy and environmental hot-spots were identified to define suitable options of improvement.

The method used for the impact assessment was CML 2001,developed by the Centre for Environmental Studies (Guinee et al.,2001), according to which the following impact categories wereassessed:

- Global warming- Ozone depletion- Photochemical Oxidation- Acidification- Eutrophication- Human Toxicity

- Fresh water aquatic Ecotoxicity- Marine aquatic Ecotoxicity- Terrestrial Ecotoxicity.

Global Energy Requirement (GER) was accounted according tothe Cumulative Energy Demand Method (PRè-Product EcologyConsultants, 2010). Further water consumption and wastes wereestimated.

2.2. Description of the production process

The case study was referred to a single company in southernItaly, which is characterized by a high level of specialization, withdifferent productive rotating cycles in greenhouses that allow analmost continuous yield of different crops all year. It owns50,000 m2 of cultivated fields, subdivided in:

- 3 pavilions of 10,000 m2, which are used to crop tomatoes,cherry tomatoes and melons, respectively;

- Two tunnel of 10,000 m2, both for zucchinis and peppers.

In detail, cultivation process can be subdivided in the followingsteps:

- Management of greenhouse: construction, maintenance anddisposal of pavilions or tunnels.

- Land preparation for the seeding, which includes ploughingand leveling of the soil.

- Preliminary treatments, which include the use of pesticidesand herbicides inside the greenhouse. Successively, organicmanure and chemical fertilizers, applied into water solutions,are added to enrich soil.

- Mulching: the bottom of the greenhouse is covered witha protective plastic sheet, generally a layer of LDPE with a thick-ness of 30e60 mm, aimed to reduce water consumption for irri-gations, to limit the growth of parasitic plants, to avoid the soilerosion and protect the plants roots, to reduce heat losses in thegreenhouses, and to support thegrowthof theusefulmicro-flora.

- Seeding: vegetables are first grown into apposite boxes ofexpanded polystyrene (EPS). Their use increases not only thechances of survival of small plants, but also involves resourceconsumption and plastic waste generation. The use of insectsfor pollination was not taken into account.

- Chemical fertilization and pesticide-based treatment, corre-sponding to the vegetative cycles of the plants. Chemicals aredistributed by means of the irrigation systems.

- Irrigation, which takes place with water extracted from localwells, applied throughout the entire vegetative cycles,depending on the plant demand. Irrigation uses the efficienttechnique of micro-irrigation with small pierced pipes, wherethe water flow is reduced correspondingly to the absorptioncapacity of the plants and is limited only to the upper part of thesoil. Such a system allows to save water source, to optimize thedistribution of fertilizers and to reduce the transfer of nitrates tothe water table. Water pumps are fed by a diesel generator.

- Harvest of matured crops: at the end of their vegetative lifeplants are chopped and mixed to the soil as organic manure,involving a double benefit: to reduce the impoverishing of thesoil and to decrease the waste production.

2.3. Functional unit

A product system is a set of materially and energetically con-nected unit processes that performs one or more defined functions

Table 1Primary data referred to 1000 kg of packaged products.

Melon Pepper Zucchini Tomato Cherrytomato

InputSteel (kg) 161.8 e e 60.5 141.2Aluminium (kg) e 10.0 23.1 e e

Concrete (kg) 109.0 e e 40.8 95.2Glass fiber resin (kg) 6.1 e e 2.3 5.3Plastic (kg) 29.4 36.8 84.3 19.8 46.3Water (m3) 111.2 80.0 129.7 62.4 48.5Fertilizer (kg) 65.3 40.0 101.9 21.3 49.7Manure (kg) 58.9 33.9 78.5 22.0 51.4Pesticide (kg) 28.6 16.4 38.0 10.7 24.9Packaging (kg) 52.8 86.0 111.1 89.3 86.7Diesel (kg) 105.9 66.7 93.0 91.0 92.2OutputOrganic waste (kg) 250.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 50.0Construction waste (kg) 277.0 10.0 23.1 103.6 241.7Packaging (kg) 52.8 86.0 111.1 89.2 86.7Plastics (kg) 42.3 37.0 84.9 20.0 46.6Exhausted oils (kg) 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07Hazardous waste (kg) 6.2 3.6 6.2 2.3 5.2

M. Cellura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 56e6258

(ISO, 2006a). The interactions between unit processes are notnecessarily direct, but may also be influenced through changes inthe market mechanism, i.e. supply and demand, that connects theprocesses (ISO, 2008). The functional unit (FU) was defined as:“1000 kg of packaged vegetable”, for each crop.

2.4. System boundaries

The following life-cycle steps were assessed:

- Production and delivery of construction materials for thegreenhouses and chemicals (fertilizers, manures and pesti-cides), production and delivery of energy sources (diesel) andwater.

- Cultivation process, including the use of energy, water andmaterials during the various crop treatments and harvest, theuse and maintenance of agriculture machines, and the wastedisposal.

- The delivery of FUs to local companies for their selection andpackaging, the delivery to the end-use and the production ofwastes (biomass and packaging) after the consumption. Con-cerning the packaging step, cardboard boxes were used fortomatoes, melons and peppers; wood crates for zucchini andplastic crates for cherry tomatoes. With regard to the trans-ports, it was assumed that the vegetables were mostlydistributed to local (50% of the overall production) and national(40%) markets, while only the 10% of the whole productionwasaddressed to European countries. Transportations occur bytrucks.

Further assumptions were made:

- Production of seeds was neglected.- CO2 absorbed by the plants during their vegetative cycle werenot estimated, likewise the emissions due to the wasted deadplants and the food residues.

- Nitrogen emissions from the cultivation were accountedaccording to (Brentrup et al., 2000; EPA, 1995).

- The amounts of wastes due to packaging of chemicals andvegetables, to the end-of-life of greenhouses, and to vegetables’consumption were calculated. With regard to the wastedisposal, the following assumptions were made: plastics andwood are assumed to be addressed to landfill, hazardouswastes to thermal treatment, organics to composting, whilesteel and aluminium to recycling.

Fig. 1. Yearly production of the investigated firm.

2.5. Data quality and life-cycle inventory

According to the general framework provided by ISO 14040, theinventory analysis was carried out to quantify the environmentallysignificant inputs and outputs of the studied system, by means ofa mass and energy balance of each FU.

Primary datawere collected from a field investigation (referenceyear 2007). The wastes generated during the use step were esti-mated by the authors. Primary data for each FU are showed inTable 1 and referred to 1000 kg of packaged products. Fig. 1 showsthe average yearly production of each FU. Technologies of produc-tion are representative of the regional context.

The investigated company suggested to assume that:

- The pavilion structure has a lifespan of 10 years, while theirfoundations last 30 years. Further the LDPE covers aresubstituted every 3 years, while nylon ropes are yearly used totie tomato plants;

- The tunnel structure lasts 10 years, supposing that the LDPEcover is yearly substituted;

- The lifespan of the irrigation pipes in High Density Poly-ethylene (HDPE) is 3 years.

Secondary data were taken from international databases: eco-profiles of energy and material inputs were referred to EcoinventCentre (2007). They are referred to the average European context.

Fuel consumption and air emissions from transportation werecalculated, depending on the transport mode and the distancebetween sites provided by the investigated company.

Allocation was performed for the greenhouse components andwastes from agriculture machines. Each greenhouse componentwas related to the production of each FU along the lifespan of thecomponent itself. Wastes from agriculture machines were allocatedto the FUs, relating such wastes to the total production of thevegetables.

3. Results

3.1. Life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA)

Ecoprofiles of the assessed FUs are showed in Table 2. Generallythe largest burdens are related to the production of zucchinis, whilethe lowest to tomatoes, except for wastes.

Table 2Ecoprofiles of vegetables (FU 1000 kg).

Impact Melon Pepper Zucchini Tomato Cherrytomato

Global EnergyRequirement GER (GJ)

24 18 29 16.2 23

Global WarmingPotential GWP (kg CO2eq)

1427.5 915.5 1571 740 1245.9

Ozone DepletionPotential ODP [kg CFC11eq]

5.7E-04 4.0E-04 4.5E-04 4.3E-04 5.1E-04

Photochemical oxidationPOCP (kg C2H4eq)

0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5

Acidification (kg SO2eq) 11.2 6.9 13.0 5.7 9.8Eutrophication ðkg PO3�

4 eqÞ 4.3 3.4 6.7 2.1 3.7Human toxicity (kg 1,4-DB) 848.6 850.4 1746.4 430.4 769.0Fresh water aquatic

ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB)408.8 440.8 932.3 194.5 421.8

Marine aquaticecotoxicity (ton 1,4-DB)

649.1 676.6 1307.7 313.1 611.1

Terrestrialecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB)

5.5 4.8 9.7 2.9 4.8

Water Consumption (m3) 147.8 111.8 172.4 88.9 77.7Wastes (kg) 281.8 130.4 210.0 178.4 293.6

Fig. 2. Contribution of life-cycle

M. Cellura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 56e62 59

It can be noted that GER results varied from 16.2 GJ to 29 GJ. Adetail of GER consumption is shown in Fig. 2. It is possible toobserve that the higher contribution is related to the greenhouses(16e30%) and the steps of “harvest, transport and packaging”(14e35%). All of the cultivation activities account for 20% (tomato)up to 46% (zucchini). Furthermore, transportation to consumers hasa large share of the GER (up to 19.3%) because the products are sentto both national and international markets.

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) varies from about740 kg CO2eq to 1571 kg CO2eq. Eutrophication varies from about2 kg PO3�

4 eq in tomato’s life cycle to 6.7 kg PO3�4 eq in zucchini’s life

cycle. It is mainly due to the step of “irrigation, fertilization anddisinfestation”, which shares from 25% (tomato’s life-cycle impact)to 43% (zucchini’s life cycle). With regard to acidification, it variesfrom 5.7 kg SO2eq to 13 kg SO2eq. ODP is negligible in all of theassessed ecoprofiles.

Human toxicity and ecotoxicity are mostly due to the contri-bution of greenhouses’ life cycle, which has the following ranges ofvariation from tomatoes to zucchinis: 14e46% of the humantoxicity, 40.5e62% of the fresh water ecotoxicity, 26.5e52% of themarine aquatic ecotoxicity and 13e37% of the terrestrialecotoxicity.

steps to GER for each FU.

Fig. 3. Waste rates produced in the life cycle of each FU.

M. Cellura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 56e6260

Cherry tomatoes and melons involve the highest waste gener-ation. In detail, the cherry tomato’s life cycle involves 293.6 kg ofwastes per 1000 kg of packaged vegetable, of which about 40% isdue to the greenhouse disposal and 30% is due to the packaging.Waste generation from melons’ life cycle (281.8 kg per FU) arisesmainly from the greenhouse disposal (50%), while plastics andpackaging shares for 20%. The life cycle of 1000 kg of peppersinvolves the lowest waste generation among the other FUs(130.4 kg), of which 70% derives from packaging. With regard to thewaste generation from zucchini’s life cycle (210 kg), packagingaccounts for more than 50%, while plastics share for about 40%.

Table 3Comparison with literature LCA studies on tomato cultivations (FU: 1000 kg of tomato).

Index Details References LCA s

GER: 16.2 GJ;GWP: 740� 103 kg CO2eq

Tomato cultivatedin greenhouses inMediterraneangreenhouses

Case-study GreeToma(LandfertiliHarvand pTransWast

GER: 125 GJ;GWP: 9.4� 103 kg CO2eq

Tomato cultivatedin greenhousesin Northern Europe

Williamset al., 2006

GreeToma(Auxiventiinto a

GWP: 81.4 kg CO2eq Tomato cultivated inMediterraneangreenhouses inspringesummer cycles

Antón et al., 2005 GreeToma(Useabsorare eWast

GER: 42 GJ;GWP: 3.3� 103 kg CO2eq

Tomato cultivated ingreenhouses in Swedenor in the nearby countries

Carlsson-Kanayma,1998

ProdToma(fertiTrans(refriprodurefrigSale

GER: 5.4 GJ Tomato cultivatedin open fieldsin Southern Europe

Carlsson-Kanaymaet al. 2003

ProdTomaStoraup toHousand c

Wastes from tomato’s life cycle mainly derive from packaging (50%)and from greenhouse disposal (nearly 30%). Details on wastegeneration from each FU life cycle are showed in Fig. 3.

4. Discussion

Starting from the presented LCA study the following consider-ations must be made:

- The greenhouses production and the packaging steps involvethe highest contributions on GER (14e35%), together withtransportations to consumers because the products areaddressed even to international market (up to 10%). Thereforesuch life-cycle phases as packaging and transportations toconsumers are key issues that should be investigated and onwhich improvement solutions should be identified;

- Among the studied crops, zucchinis’ life cycle involves thehighest impacts, except for the waste generation which ismostly due to the melons’ life cycle;

- Tunnel and pavilion greenhouses are characterized bycomparable ecoprofiles with slightly higher environmentalimpacts associated with the former;

- Specific production of vegetables represents a key parameter inthe ecoprofiles. This means that crops with higher specificproduction, as tomatoes and cherry tomatoes, involve lowerenvironmental impacts in comparison with the others (asmelons or zucchinis).

LCA methodology can be an effective tool to improve the eco-profile of the crops. Some improvement solutions can be identifiedfor the ecoprofile of the examined crops, taking into account some ofthe basic strategies of eco-design (reduction, reuse and recycle,

teps included LCA steps excluded LCIA method

nhouse structureto productiontreatment, seeding,zation, irrigation)est, transportackagingport to retailere management

Sale to retailerFood consumption

GER: CumulativeEnergy DemandGWP: CML 2001(100 years timeperspective)

nhouse structureto productionliary heating andlation are takenccount)

e GWP is estimated over100 years e No methodis cited

nhouse structureto productionof fertilizer and CO2

bed by the grovesstimated)e management

PackagingTransportsSale to retailerFood consumption

GWP: IPCC(20 years timeperspective)

uction of fertilizersto productionlization, seeding and crop)portsgeration is considered:ction and emissions fromeration equipmentto retailer

Greenhouse constructionPackagingFood consumptionWaste management

GWP: IPCC(20 years timeperspective)

uction of farm inputsto productionge and transportationretailereholds preparationooking

Production of machineryand buildingsPackagingWaste managementTransportation fromretailer to consumers

e

M. Cellura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 56e62 61

recovery and treatment for disposal), but not forgetting that a pillarfor the sustainability development is the integration between envi-ronmental friendly production systems and technological feasibility.

5. Comparison with literature studies

Several studies of LCA in the food sector have been performed inrecent years concerning the environmental assessment of differentfood products (Davis and Sonesson, 2008; Roy et al., 2009; Beccaliet al., 2009; Ardente et al., 2006; Milái Canals et al., 2006;Yoshikawa et al., 2008;Torrelas et al., 2010).

However the most complete and reliable studies were per-formed for tomato cultivations, both in greenhouses and in openfields.

In Table 3 the results of GER and GWP indices for tomatoescultivated in different countries and with different technologies areshowed. Data are referred to 1000 kg of tomato.

A large variability of environmental burdens is due to thecultivation technique. For example, fresh tomatoes cultivated insouthern European open fields involve a consumption of 5.4 GJ per1000 kg (Carlsson-Kanayma et al., 2003). Tomato in North Europegreenhouses can imply higher consumption of primary energy. InCarlsson-Kanayma (1998) the life cycle of tomato grown in green-houses in Sweden or nearby countries was presented. The studyshowed a GER of 42 GJ and a GWP of 3.3�103 kg CO2eq.

Williams et al. (2006) pointed out that about 97% of the energyused in tomato production is for heating and lighting to extend thegrowing season. Energy consumption per unit area is almostidentical for all tomato production systems, then the highestyielding tomatoes (non-organic, traditional) incur lower burdensthan all other types of tomato. In this study the cultivation of1000 kg of tomato requires a GER of 125 GJ and involves thefollowing average environmental impacts: 9.4�103 kg CO2eq,15�103 kg PO3�

4 eq, and 12�103 kg SO2eq.Antón et al. (2005) assessed protected tomato crops in Medi-

terranean greenhouses. Tomatoes are produced in springesummercycles with different cultivations and disposal scenarios. Theauthors estimated that the GWP for the production of 1000 kg oftomato amounts to 81.4 kg CO2eq. They assessed the yearly amountof CO2 absorbed by the crop groves. Packaging and transports in theuse phase were not included.

The above cited LCA studies on tomato crops showed a signifi-cant difference in the outcomes, mainly due to the differentadopted techniques of cultivation. Further, it is possible that thesystem boundaries do not include the same life-cycle steps. Forexample, in the presented study, for some vegetables, like tomatoesand peppers, packaging has the highest environmental impact,while in Antón et al. (2005) packaging was not included in theassessment. This explains why the studied cultivation has higherimpact compared to such a Mediterranean case study.

By comparing the results of the presented study with the abovedata, it can be noted that the GER (16.2 GJ/103 kg) of the tomatoes inpavilions is three times larger than that of tomatoes grown in openfields (Carlsson-Kanayma, 1998), while the GWP (740 kg CO2eq) isten times larger than that of tomatoes cultivated in other Medi-terranean greenhouses (Antón et al., 2005). On the contrary, theGER and GWP are lower when compared to protected crops culti-vated in the northern Europe (Carlsson-Kanayma, 1998), due to theuse of auxiliary heating systems in the last case.

6. Conclusions

Studies on the agro-food sector have shown it as one of themostrelevant contributors to environmental impacts, via resourcesdepletion, land degradation, air emissions and waste generation.

In this study, the authors assessed the current scenario of pro-tected crops production, with particular focus on a Siciliancompany which produces five different varieties of vegetablescultivated into two greenhouse typologies (pavilions and tunnel).Following a life-cycle approach the authors assessed the environ-mental impacts of the examined products, in order to identify themost significant issues and to suggest suitable options that reducethe environmental impacts of the production system. Mass andenergy inputs and outputs in the production stages from cultivationto delivery to the users were taken into account, including indirectenvironmental impact related to energy source generation, waterand raw materials supply. Waste management was estimated.

The highlights derived from the study include the following:

- As the comparison with other similar LCA studies showed,protected crops in Mediterranean greenhouses are character-ized by lower GER and GWP than those in greenhouses in theNorth of Europe, due to the non-use of auxiliary heatingsystems in the former;

- Tunnels and pavilions greenhouses are characterized bycomparable ecoprofiles of products, with slightly higher envi-ronmental impacts related to the former ones;

- The use of pavilions can allow the seasonal rotation of differenttypes of cultivations, with sensible reduction of impacts. Forexample, to alternate the cultivation of tomatoes and thecultivation of melons in the pavilions can involve a continuousharvest throughout the year. Thus environmental impacts, dueto the life cycle of the infrastructures, can be distributed acrossa larger production, and, consequently, specific impacts canbecome lower;

- The LCA study showed that the most significant impacts arerelated to the use of materials for greenhouses and packaging.Therefore, eco-design of packaging should be investigatedmore in detail and eco-design solutions should be checked. Animprovement solution could be the use of environmentally-friendly raw materials, that is low impacts and recycledmaterials. For example a feasible option can be the replace-ment of the current cardboard boxes used for tomatoes and thecommon plastic crates used for cherry tomatoes, with biode-gradable plant-based plastics. This alternative could beimplemented without deep behavioral change by theconsumer.

References

Antón, A., Montero, J.I., Muñoz, P., Castells, F., 2005. LCA and tomato production inMediterranean greenhouses. International Journal of Agricultural Resources,Governance and Ecology 4, 102e112.

Ardente, F., Beccali, G., Cellura, M., Marvuglia, A., 2006. POEMS: a case study of anItalian wine-producing firm. Environmental Management 38, 350e364.

Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Iudicello, M., Mistretta, M., 2009. Resource consumption andenvironmental impacts of the agrofood sector: life cycle assessment of Italiancitrus-based products. Environmental Management 43, 707e724.

Blengini, G.A., Busto, M., 2009. The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternative agro-foodchain management systems in Vercelli (Italy). Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 90, 1512e1522.

Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Kuhlmamm, H., 2000. Methods to estimate onfield nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in theagricultural sector. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5 (6),349e357.

Carlsson-Kanayma, A., 1998. Climate change and dietary choices: how can emis-sions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced. Food Policy 23,277e293.

Carlsson-Kanayma, A., Ekstrom, M.P., Shanahan, H., 2003. Food and life cycle energyinputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. EcologicalEconomics 44, 293e307.

Cellura, M., Ardente, F., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ofprotected crops: an Italian case study. In: Proceedings of the 8th InternationalConference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector, Bari, Italy, pp.449e454.

M. Cellura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 56e6262

Davis, J., Sonesson, U., 2008. Life cycle assessment of integrated food chains:a Swedish case study of two chicken meals. International Journal of Life CycleAssessment 13, 574e584. doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0031-y. Online first.

Ecoinvent Centre, 2007. Ecoinvent Database. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.EPA e Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Compilation of air pollutant emis-

sions factors. AP-42. www.epa.gov.European Commission, 2001. Regulation No 761/2001 of The European Parliament

and of The Council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation byorganisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS).

European Commission, 2007, The Council of the European Union “Council Regu-lation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling oforganic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91”.

Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A., 2006. EnvironmentalImpacts of Food Production and Consumption: A Report to the Department forEnvironment. Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School, Defra, UnitedKingdom.

Guinee, J.B., Gorree, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Oers, L., van Wegener, L.,Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., deBruijn, J.A., van Duin, R.,Huijbregts, M.A.J. (Eds.), 2001. Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide tothe ISO Standards. CML, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands Parts availableat: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/lca2/index.html.

Hagelaar, GJ.L.F., van der Vorst, JG.A.J., 2001. Environmental supply chain manage-ment: using life cycle assessment to structure supply chains. International Foodand Agribusiness Management Review 4, 399e412.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006a. EnvironmentalManagement e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and Framework ISO 14040.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006b. EnvironmentalManagemente Life Cycle AssessmenteRequirements andGuidelines ISO14044.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2008. Quality ManagementSystems e Requirements ISO 9001.

Meisterling, K., Samaras, C., Schweizer, V., 2009. Decisions to reduce greenhousegases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic andconventional wheat. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 222e230.

Milái Canals, L., Burnip, G.M., Cowell, S.J., 2006. Evaluation of the environmentalimpacts of apple production using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Case study inNew Zealand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114, 226e238.

Mintcheva, V., 2005. Indicators for environmental policy integration in the foodsupply chain (the case of the tomato ketchup supply chain and the integratedproduct policy). Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 717e731.

PRè-Product Ecology Consultants, 2010. SimaPro7, Environmental Database.Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2009.

A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of FoodEngineering 90, 1e10.

Schau, M.E., Fet, A.M., 2008. LCA studies of food products as background for envi-ronmental product declarations. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment13, 255e264.

The International EPD Cooperation (IEC), 2008. General Programme Instructions forEnvironmental Product Declarations, EPD version 1.0 dated 2008-02-29.

Torrelas, M., Antòn, A., Ruijs, M., Garcìa, N., Stanghellini, C., Balint, A., Montero, J.I.,2010. Environmental and economic assessment of protected crops in fourEuropean scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on LifeCycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector, Bari, Italy, pp. 243e248.

Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., Suh, S.,Geerken, T., VanHolderbeke, M., Jansen, B., Nielsen, P., 2006. EnvironmentalImpacts of Products (EIPRO). Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental ImpactsRelated to the Final Consumption of the EU-25. Main Report. EuropeanCommission, Joint Research Centre.

Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the EnvironmentalBurdens and Resource Use in the Production of Agricultural and HorticulturalCommodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield Universityand Defra, Bedford. Available on:. http://www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk. www.defra.gov.uk.

Yoshikawa, N., Amano, K., Shimada, K., 2008. Evaluation of environmental loadsrelated to fruit and vegetable consumption using the hybrid LCA method:Japanese case study. In: Proceedings of Life Cycle Assessment IX, Seattle,Washington, September 30eOctober 2.