See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283413506

Comparing the environmental impacts of greenhouse versus open-field

tomato production in the Mediterranean region

Article in Acta Horticulturae · November 2008

DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.801.197

CITATIONS READS

88 9,095

8 authors, including:

Pere Muñoz Assumpció Antón

IRTA Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology IRTA Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology
102 PUBLICATIONS 3,606 CITATIONS 151 PUBLICATIONS 7,066 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ashwin Vijay Paranjpe Joan Rieradevall

Mahindra College Autonomous University of Barcelona
11 PUBLICATIONS 412 CITATIONS 277 PUBLICATIONS 10,341 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joan Rieradevall on 13 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparing the Environmental Impacts of Greenhouse versus Open-
Field Tomato Production in the Mediterranean Region
P. Muñoz1, A. Antón1, M. Nuñez1, 2, A. Paranjpe1, J. Ariño3, X. Castells4, J.I. Montero1
and J. Rieradevall2
1
IRTA, Ctra. Cabrils Km 2, 08348 Cabrils, Barcelona, Spain
2
ICTA-UAB, Edifici Ciències – Campus de la UAB – 08193 Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del
Vallès, Barcelona, Spain
3
Federació SELMAR Masia Can Ratés s/n, 08398 Santa Susanna, Barcelona, Spain
4
Agrícola El Progrés-Garbí, Camí del Pla s/n, 08380 Malgrat de Mar, Barcelona, Spain

Keywords: LCA, environmental burden, water use, fertilizer, pesticides

Abstract
Greenhouse production is often perceived as an artificial process,
characterized by low nutritional quality of the final product and the heavy use of
chemical inputs. Moreover, large areas covered with greenhouses create a big visual
impact, a factor which is especially important in the highly touristic Mediterranean
Coastal. In contrast, open-field cultivation is generally perceived as an ‘eco-friendly’
activity, and one that has a much smaller visual impact. Setting aside these
‘apparent’ perceptions of the two cultivation systems, it is necessary to make an
objective assessment and to quantify their respective impacts on the environment.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) tool was used to compare the environmental burdens
associated with greenhouse as opposed to open-field production processes for a
spring season tomato crop grown in the Maresme region near Barcelona.
Greenhouse structure, irrigation equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, cultural tasks and
irrigation were all analyzed as subsystems. All inputs for each subsystem were
traced back to primary resources. For each subsystem, emissions were quantified
and aggregated into impact categories defined by CML 2001, using tomato yield (kg)
as the functional unit. Preliminary results revealed that environmental burden per
kg of tomato grown in open-field production was greater than that for tomatoes
produced in greenhouses with respect to factors such as the use of water, fertilizers
and pesticides. Notwithstanding the differences in environmental burden associated
with the two production systems, if one considers the higher economic returns
obtained from greenhouse production, their existence could constitute a reasonable
trade-off.

INTRODUCTION
Greenhouse production is often perceived as an artificial process, characterized by
the low nutritional quality of its product and the heavy use of chemical inputs. Moreover,
large areas covered with greenhouses have a major visual impact, a factor which is
especially important in areas of the Mediterranean coast that receive a lot of tourism. On
the other hand, open-field cultivation is generally perceived as a more environmental
friendly activity, and has a much smaller visual impact. Regardless of the common
perception of these two cultivation systems, it is necessary to make an objective
assessment and to quantify their respective impacts on the environment.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has become in a popular tool, also in agriculture,
trying to be the most objective and transparent methodology to quantify and assess
environmental burdens of products and services (Antón et al., 2002; Audsley, 1997). The
ISO standards (ISO-14040, 2006; ISO-14044, 2006) identify guidelines to be followed in
a LCA study in order to guarantee this objectivity.
Previous studies using LCA in Agriculture have compared different productions
systems involving open air, organic, integrated and conventional crops (Cowell, 1998;
Mattsson, 1999; Milà, 2003; Wegener Sleeswijk et al., 1996). Several works carried out
using LCA have examined the “bottle neck” of greenhouse horticulture (Antón, 2004;

Proc. IS on Greensys2007 1591

Eds.:S. De Pascale et al.
Acta Hort. 801, ISHS 2008
Antón et al., 2005; Jolliet, 1993; Nienhuis and de Vreede, 2005; Russo and Scarascia-
Mugnozza, 2004; Van Woerden, 2001). Even so, no previous study has compared the
environmental impact of vegetable production in greenhouse with traditional field
production.
In this work, LCA was used to compare environmental burdens associated with
greenhouse and open-field production processes for a spring tomato crop grown in the
Maresme region, near Barcelona.

GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITION

The aim of this study was to assess the environmental burden associated with
growing tomatoes in open-field and in greenhouse in a Mediterranean area (Maresme,
Catalonia, Spain).The functional unit chosen was the production of 1 kg of commercial
tomato, which provided a useful reference for normalising input and output data and
carrying out mathematical analyses. All of the impacts were expressed in relation to this
base unit; kg of commercial tomato.
Greenhouse structure, irrigation equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, cultural tasks
and irrigation were all analyzed as subsystems (Fig. 1). The production area, which was in
Maresme, close to Barcelona, was taken as the limit of the study. In Maresme, the tomato
is commercialised in the local market; so it is not necessary to consider any significant
environmental burdens associated with its commercialisation.
System boundaries: The modules considered were: agrochemical production
(fertilizers and pesticides); the production and use of energy for agricultural purposes (to
operate the machinery and irrigation systems); and, finally, the agricultural phase, which
includes practices performed on the farm. The study period was the 2006 campaign.
Data source and quality: All data relating to agricultural practices were obtained
from the experimental fields located in Cabrils (41º 31’ 31’’ N 2º 22’ 07’’ E, 130 m) and
Santa Susanna (41º38’27’’ N 2º 43’ 00’’ E, 17 m) (Maresme, Catalunya, Spain) between
March and September 2006. Data analysed related to: application dose of pesticides and
mineral fertilizers doses, water consumption, fertirrigation pump energy consumption,
and machinery used in cultural operations. Data relating to greenhouse characteristics and
management energy were taken from Antón (2004).
For processes such as transport, fertilizer production and greenhouse
infrastructure, we took into account data from the European regional database. Audsley
(1997) and the database Ecoinvent system process v. 1.2, 2005, including in the software
v. 7.0, 2006 were used. Table 1 provides a summary of the data considered.
The midpoint impact categories were those defined by CML (Guinée et al., 2002):
acidification, eutrophication, global warming, ozone depletion and depletion of non
renewable resources. Due to a lack of agreement, toxicity categories were not considered,
but two flux indicators were considered; energy and water consumption (Table 2).

LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY

Yields for open-field and greenhouse production were 8.6 and 16.5 kg·m-2
respectively. The considered destination for the different wastes products was landfill, (40
km far away from the crop area) except for the plastic covers that were to be sent to a
recycling plant (600 km far away from crop area). Life Cycle Inventory was divided in
different phases:

Greenhouse Structure
A six span, steel frame and LDPE covered greenhouse was used as the structure.
The phases of greenhouses production, transportation of materials, installation,
management and waste management were considered according to the criteria established
by Audsley (1997) and Antón (2004).
The total area of the greenhouse was 5000 m2: it was 104 m long, 4 m hight at the
gutter and 5.5 m high at the ridge. It had six roof and two side-wall openings. The
openings were controlled by 0.75 HP engines. No heating was using during the cropping

1592
period.
For each material used it has been considered the proportional part corresponding
to five months of crop related to the complete life span.

Fertirrigation Structure
We analysed the components used for drip irrigation in both the greenhouse and
open-field systems. We also took into account the fact that a greenhouse tomato crop has
a five-month growth cycle, while that of an open field crop takes six months.

Fertilizers
Table 3 shows the doses of fertilizers applied in each system. It is important to
bear in mind the high nitrate content of irrigation water used in open-field area which
reduces the need for N fertilizer.

Water Consumption
The water used for irrigation in the greenhouse and open-field system was pumped
from a well in the same area. A (4 kW) pump was used to extract groundwater and
another (2.2 kW) pump was used to drive the water to the crop: this was considered in
both systems. The water consumption in the greenhouse crop was 400 L m-2, while in the
open-field it was 407 L m-2.
Field Operations
We took into consideration all of the work done by tractors and other agricultural
machinery. This included the use of harrowers, cultivators, and sprayers, etc. (for details
see Table 4). The energy requirements for the machinery were: producing raw material,
manufacturing, repairs and maintenance, transport from the factory to the farm and diesel
consumption during operation in the field. Differences between greenhouse and open
field are the size of the tractor, the number of pesticides treatments (more in the open-
field) and the period of crop (five and six months respectively).

IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Table 5 shows the overall impact per kg of tomato for the two systems. It is
evident that the open-field system presents a highest impact for most categories:
acidification, 32% greater, almost 31% more depletion of non-renewable resources; 27%
higher energy consumption, and 24% greater impact in eutrophication, and almost twice
the water consumption. The lower yield of open-field production was one of the main
causes of these higher impacts. The main difference between outdoors and indoor
production were related to the structure, while values for cultural labours were quite
similar in the two systems.
Fertilizers production was the main factor that influenced the environmental
burden associated with acidification and eutrofization. In the first case, this was due to
emissions of SO2 and NH3 and in the second to the leaching of NO3 to water. It is
important to stress that the nitrate content in the water used for irrigation in the open field
system reduced the need to apply fertilizers. The ratios could therefore have been higher
under situations involving similar rates of application.
Oil and natural gas were the main non-renewable resources affected by the
consumption of energy, diesel oil and electricity. Labours involving the use of tractors
and machinery and watering pumps were responsible from this energy consumption. At
this case labours and watering were quite similar in both systems, nevertheless the size of
tractor used to be smaller in greenhouse, also the number of pesticides used is highest in
open-field and therefore it was needed more tractor and sprayer applications.
Greenhouse structure had the greatest influence in the global warming category
(the open-field system had only 67% of the impact of the greenhouse system), with the
highest values being due to emissions of CO2 during the production of the structure itself
(using steel and concrete). The use of recycled materials or extending the lifespan of the

1593
materials used could help to reduce this impact.
Although this inventory was carried out for two experimental fields that could be
considered representative of agricultural practices in the local area, the quantitative results
must be regarded as a preliminary, as values may vary from one year campaign to
another: in horticulture, variations amongst exploitations, locations and years is often very
high.

CONCLUSIONS
Although this study must be considered as a preliminary, the results suggest that
greenhouse production could have a smaller environmental impact than open-field crops
in most of the evaluation categories considered. As we chose yield as the basic functional
unit, most of the impact categories studied were adversely influenced by low production
in open-field.
Greenhouse structure had the biggest influence in the global warming category.
Future work must therefore concentrate on reducing the impacts in this category.
It is relevant to stress the great advantage that could be gained by reducing the
consumption of water in greenhouses systems located in semi-arid regions.
LCA tools give us information about potential global impact, but there are also a
series of local types of environmental impacts, such as visual impacts, erosion, landscape
damage, etc. that must also be taken into account in any policy relating to the construction
of greenhouses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was partially supported by MEC Ref. PTR95.0848.OP, CICYT
AGL2005-06492-C03-01, INIA-RTA2005 0142-CO2-02 and MMA Ref. 461/2006/3-2.3.

Literature Cited
Antón, A. 2004. Utilización del Análisis del Ciclo de Vida en la Evaluación del Impacto
ambiental del cultivo bajo invernadero Mediterráneo. Tesis doctoral, Universitat
Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona.
Antón, A., Montero, J.I. and Castells, F. 2002. Life Cycle Assessment: a Tool to Evaluate
and Improve the Environmental Impact of Mediterranean Greenhouses. Acta Hort.
614:35-40.
Antón, A., Castells, F., Montero, J.I. and Muñoz, P. 2005. LCA and Tomato Production
In Mediterranean Greenhouses. Int. J. Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology
2 (4): 102-112.
Audsley, E. 1997. Harmonisation of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Final Report
Concerted action AIR3-CT94-2028. European Commission DG VI Agriculture.
Cowell, S.J. 1998. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural Systems:
Integration Into Decision-Making. Ph. D. thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford.
Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., K.R., de Koning, A., Wegener
Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H., Bruijn, H., Duin, R.v. and Huijbregts, M.A.J.
2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards
Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
ISO-14040. 2006. Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Principles and
framework. International standard 14040. International Organisation for
Standardisation ISO, Geneva.
ISO-14044. 2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements
and guidelines. International Standard 14044. International Organisation for
Standardisation ISO, Geneva.
Jolliet, O. 1993. Bilan écologique de la production de tomates en serre. Revue S. Vitic.
Arboric. Hortic. 25 (4):261-267.
Mattsson, B. 1999. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of carrot puree: case studies of organic
and integrated production.
Milà, L. 2003. Contributions to Life Cycle Analysis for Agricultural Systems. Site-

1594
 dependency and soil degradation impact assessment. Tesis doctoral, Universitat
Autònoma, Bellaterra.
Nienhuis, J.K. and Vreede, P.J.A. 1996. Utility of the environmental life cycle assessment
method in horticulture. Acta Hort 429:531-538.
Russo, G. and Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. 2004. LCA methodology applied to various
typology of greenhouses. Acta Hort. 691:837-844.
Van Woerden, S. 2001. The application of Life Cycle Analysis in glasshouse horticulture.
International Conference LCA in Foods, Gothenburg.
Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Kleijn, R., van Zeitjs, H., Reus, J.A.W.A., Meusen van Onna, H.,
Leneman, H. and Sengers, H.H.W.J.M. 1996. Application of LCA to Agricultural
Products CML report 130. Centre of Environmental Science Leiden University (CML),
Centre of Agriculture and Environment (CLM), Agricultural-Economic Institute (LEI-
DLO), Leiden.

Tables

Table 1. Quality of data used in the Life Cycle Inventory.

Process Geographic scope Date Source

Fertilizers production Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Ecoinvent
Pesticides production Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Ecoinvent
Experimental fields
Cultural labours Local 2006 Maresme
Experimental fields
Local 2006
Machinery Maresme
Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Ecoinvent
Diesel Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Ecoinvent
Experimental fields
Local 2004-2006 Maresme
Greenhouse structure Antón (2004)
Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Ecoinvent
Fertilizers transport Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Ecoinvent
Fertirrigation emissions Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Audsley (1997)
Waste transport Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Ecoinvent
Waste treatment Europe Version v. 1.2, 2005 Ecoinvent

Table 2. Midpoint impact categories and units.

Impact Categories Units

Depletion of non-renewable resources Kg Sb eq.
Global warming Kg CO2 eq.
Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 eq.
Acidification Kg SO2 eq.
Eutrophication Kg PO4-2 eq.
Energy consumption MJ-Eq.
Water consumption L

1595
 Table 3. Fertilizers applied to greenhouse and open-field crops.

Fertilizer Active Open-field Greenhouse

compounds (g m-2) (g m-2)
HNO3 36º Be N 0 19.8
KPO4H2 K2O 15.85 18.74
P2O5 18.55 21.94
KNO3 K2O 31.71 9.38
N 9.44 2.78
K2SO4 K2O 31.71 56.24
water N 17.1 2.8

Table 4. Type and machinery and time used for different cultural labours.

Specific machine Open field Greenhouse

Harrow 1 1
Cultivator 1,1 1,1
Ridge 2.75 2.75
Herbicide Sprayer 0,6 0,6
Pesticides Sprayer 7,8 0,6

Table 5. Overall result for greenhouse and open-field systems to produce 1 kg of

tomatoes.

Impact categories Units Greenhouse Open-field O/G

Depletion of non renewable Kg Sb eq. 3,65E-04 4,79E-04 1,31
resources
Global warming Kg CO2 eq. 7,44E-02 5,01E-02 0,67
Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 eq. 8,97E-09 8,95E-09 1,00
Acidification Kg SO2 eq. 4,84E-04 6,38E-04 1,32
Eutrophication Kg PO4-2 eq. 1,23E-04 1,52E-04 1,24
Energy consumption MJ eq. 0,94 1,19 1,27
Water consumption L 24,24 42,84 1,77

Figures

Greenhouse
management
Field
Greenhouse Transport operations
structure

Fertirrigation Transport
structure

Waste

Fertilizers Fertilizers Fertirrigation

production transport

Pesticides
production

Fig. 1. Scheme of the different subsystems analysed. Items in italics correspond to the
subsystems only considered in the greenhouse system.

1596

View publication stats