Advertisement

Eco-innovation in garden irrigation tools and carbon footprint assessment

  • M. Yuli
  • R. Puig
  • M. A. Fuentes
  • D. Civancik-Uslu
  • M. Capilla
Original Paper
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

This article describes the eco-innovative characteristics implemented in electronic devices for irrigation with smart-gardening solutions, such as internet connection for weather forecast and sensors of soil moisture contents, as well as a database with different plants necessities. The main function of these products is to collect and analyze the information related to plants needs, thus reducing water and fertilizer consumption. In addition to quantify the environmental impact of savings in these two resource flows (40% water and 20% fertilizers savings) compared with conventional irrigation systems, an ISO 14067 compliant life cycle-based carbon footprint evaluation has been performed to quantify environmental impact of the product itself. The main methodological issue is finding a means on how to proceed when the main environmental benefit of the product under study is, in fact, the service it provides to other systems and when this service cannot be included directly in the product’s carbon footprint calculation due to lack of defined standard-use conditions (such as meteorology or soil composition). Implementation of smart irrigation tools in gardening and agriculture can lead the transition toward more sustainable production systems worldwide, as well as being an example of business transformation toward resource efficiency improvements through the use of information technology systems to contribute to circular economy.

Keywords

Communication of product value Life cycle assessment Product carbon footprint Smart-gardening solutions Water and resources saving 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The product was sent to compete at the 2015 Catalonia Ecodesign Awards, being acknowledged a mention to the Category A “Products” prize. The authors wish to thank the Catalan Government for this honor. The authors want to thank the financial support received from the Catalan Waste Agency for the performance of the carbon footprint study. Also thanks are due as well to the company, Involve Newtech S.L., for their collaboration during the study. One of the authors (Yuli) wants to express her gratitude to the UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change (ESCI-UPF) for the warm and helpful time of her stay at the Chair. The authors are responsible for the choice and presentation of information contained in this paper as well as for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit this Organization.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bala A, Raugei M, Benveniste G, Gazulla C, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2010) Simplified tools for global warming potential evaluation: when ‘good enough’ is best. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobojonov I, Berg E, Franz-Vasdeki J, Martius C, Lamers JP (2016) Income and irrigation water use efficiency under climate change: an application of spatial stochastic crop and water allocation model to Western Uzbekistan. Clim Risk Manag 13:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boone L, Van Linden V, De Meester S, Vandecasteele B, Muylle H, Roldán-Ruiz I, Nemecek T, Dewulf J (2016) Environmental life cycle assessment of grain maize production: an analysis of factors causing variability. Sci Total Environ 553:551–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calzadilla A, Rehdanz K, Tol RS (2010) The economic impact of more sustainable water use in agriculture: a computable general equilibrium analysis. J Hydrol 384(3):292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Towards a circular economy—economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Greener Manag Int 97:1–96Google Scholar
  6. EN 15804 (2012) Sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations—core rules for the product category of construction products. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Eranki PL, El-Shikha D, Hunsaker DJ, Bronson KF, Landis AE (2017) A comparative life cycle assessment of flood and drip irrigation for guayule rubber production using experimental field data. Ind Crops Prod 99:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eurostat (ed) (2013) European statistics database webpage. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastestreams/weee. Accessed December 2016
  9. García Morillo J, Rodríguez Díaz JA, Camacho E, Montesinos P (2015) Linking water footprint accounting with irrigation management in high value crops. J Clean Prod 87:594–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T, Nilsalab P et al (2017) Water stress index and its implication for agricultural land-use policy in Thailand. Int J Environ Sci Technol 15:833–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guiso A, Ghinassi G, Spugnol P (2015) Carbon footprint of three different irrigation systems. In: International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage 26th Euro Mediterranean regional conference and workshops «Innovate to improve Irrigation performances», 12–15 Oct 2015, Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
  12. Ha N, Feike T, Back H, Xiao H, Bahrs E (2015) The effect of simple nitrogen fertilizer recommendation strategies on product carbon footprint and gross margin of wheat and maize production in the North China Plain. J Environ Manag 163:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoekstra AY, Hung PQ (2002) Virtual water trade. A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international trade. Int Expert Meet Virtual Water Trade 12(11):1–244Google Scholar
  14. Huang Q, Rozelle S, Howitt R, Wang J, Huang J (2010) Irrigation water demand and implications for water pricing policy in rural China. Environ Dev Econ 15(3):293–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Involve Newtech SL (2017) Company leaflets and marketing documents from the company intranet. www.fliwer.com. Accessed June 2019
  16. IPCC (2014) Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Emission factors database. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php. Accessed Dec 2016
  17. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management-life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management-life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO 14067 (2013) Greenhouse gases—carbon footprint of products—requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar Singh A, Dubey OP, Ghosh SK (2016) Irrigation scheduling using intervention of Geomatics tools—a case study of Khedli minor. Agric Water Manag 177:454–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Langarita R, Sánchez Chóliz J, Sarasa C, Duarte R, Jiménez S (2016) Electricity costs in irrigated agriculture: a case study for an irrigation scheme in Spain. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 68:1008–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lovarelli D, Bacenetti J, Fiala M (2016) Water Footprint of crop productions: a review. Sci Total Environ 548–549:236–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nair S, George B, Malano HM, Arora M, Nawarathna B (2014) Water–energy–greenhouse gas nexus of urban water systems: review of concepts, state-of-art and methods. Resour Conserv Recycl 89:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. PAS 2050 (2011) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and service. British Standards Institution (BSI), London, UK 38 pp. ISBN:978 0 580 71382 8Google Scholar
  25. Quirós R, Villalba G, Gabarrell X, Muñoz P (2015) Life cycle assessment of organic and mineral fertilizers in a crop sequence of cauliflower and tomato. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(10):3299–3316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rebolledo-Leiva R, Angulo-Meza L, Iriarte A, González-Araya MC (2016) Joint carbon footprint assessment and data envelopment analysis for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture production. Sci Total Environ 593–594:36–46Google Scholar
  27. Scharnhorst W (2008) Life cycle assessment in the telecommunication industry: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shen X, Lin B (2017) The shadow prices and demand elasticities of agricultural water in China: a StoNED-based analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soode-Schimonsky E, Richter K, Weber-Blaschke G (2017) Product environmental footprint of strawberries: case studies in Estonia and Germany. J Environ Manag 203(1):564–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tarjuelo JM, Rodriguez-Diaz JA, Abadía R, Camacho E, Rocamora C, Moreno MA (2015) Efficient water and energy use in irrigation modernization: lessons from Spanish case studies. Agric Water Manag 162:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vellidis G, Liakos V, Andreis JH, Perry CD, Porter WM, Barnes EM, Morgan KT, Fraisse C, Migliaccio KW (2016) Development and assessment of a Smartphone application for irrigation scheduling in cotton. Comput Electron Agric 127:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Liermann CR (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467(7315):555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vuolo F, D’Urso G, De Michele C, Bianchi B, Cutting M (2015) Satellite-based irrigation advisory services: a common tool for different experiences from Europe to Australia. Agric Water Manag 147:82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yesenia Castro O (2009) Life cycle assessment of a small garden drip irrigation system in Bénin. Master Thesis in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Michigan Technology UniversityGoogle Scholar
  35. Yodkhum S, Gheewala SH, Sampattagul S (2017) Life cycle GHG evaluation of organic rice production in northern Thailand. J Environ Manag 196:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GIR, Escola d’Enginyeria d’Igualada (EEI)Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC Barcelona tech)IgualadaSpain
  2. 2.Cyclus Vitae Solutions SLIgualadaSpain
  3. 3.Involve Newtech SLBegurSpain
  4. 4.UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change (ESCI-UPF)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations