Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Assessing eco-efficiency: A metafrontier directional distance function


approach using life cycle analysis
Mercedes Beltrán-Esteve a,⁎, Ernest Reig-Martínez b, Vicent Estruch-Guitart c
a
Department of Applied Economics II, University of Valencia, Spain
b
Department of Applied Economics II, University of Valencia, Ivie, Spain
c
Department of Economy and Social Sciences, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sustainability analysis requires a joint assessment of environmental, social and economic aspects of production
Received 8 March 2016 processes. Here we propose the use of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), a metafrontier (MF) directional distance function
Received in revised form 4 October 2016 (DDF) approach, and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), to assess technological and managerial differences in
Accepted 3 January 2017
eco-efficiency between production systems. We use LCA to compute six environmental and health impacts asso-
Available online 14 January 2017
ciated with the production processes of nearly 200 Spanish citrus farms belonging to organic and conventional
Keywords:
farming systems. DEA is then employed to obtain joint economic-environmental farm's scores that we refer to
Data envelopment analysis as eco-efficiency. DDF allows us to determine farms' global eco-efficiency scores, as well as eco-efficiency scores
Directional distance function with respect to specific environmental impacts. Furthermore, the use of an MF helps us to disentangle technolog-
Eco-efficiency ical and managerial eco-inefficiencies by comparing the eco-efficiency of both farming systems with regards to a
Life cycle analysis common benchmark. Our core results suggest that the shift from conventional to organic farming technology
Metafrontier would allow a potential reduction in environmental impacts of 80% without resulting in any decline in economic
Organic citrus farming performance. In contrast, as regards farmers' managerial capacities, both systems display quite similar mean
scores.
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction formulations and encourages explicit discussion of the operational


meaning of the term” (Rigby et al., 2000, p. 5).
Modern agricultural systems can be considered as ecosystems Broadly speaking, two main ways of empirically assessing agricul-
whose properties have been amended in some way to increase produc- tural sustainability have been explored. One is based on the identifica-
tivity (Pretty, 2008), thus providing food and fibre to a rapidly growing tion of management strategies deemed sustainable (e.g. organic
human population. The relationship between agricultural systems and agriculture), and the other on achieving a targeted state of the agro-sys-
natural ecosystems covers a wide range of positive and negative effects tem defined as sustainable and evaluated with a set of indicators. Now-
(Power, 2010; Swinton et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007), and a variety of adays, organic farming systems are widely regarded as ‘sustainable’ by
frameworks have been developed to explore the links between farming the general public, or at least as relatively more ‘sustainable’ than con-
and the environment (EEA, 2005; EEA, 2006; OECD, 1993, 1999a, 1999b, ventional ones. Promoting organic farming may pave the way for a sus-
2001; Rao and Rogers, 2006; Smyth and Dumanski, 1993; van tainable agriculture. The advantages of organic systems over
Cauwenbergh et al., 2007). It is within this context that the term ‘agri- conventional systems with respect to the conservation of natural re-
cultural sustainability’ has been coined, relating to the concern about sources and the reduction of environmental impacts per unit area
the potential negative consequences of modern farming, such as the de- have been demonstrated by several meta-analyses of research carried
pletion or degradation of natural resources. Nevertheless, as shown by out on a global (Mondelaers et al., 2009) and European scale
its wide range of alternative meanings, sustainability is something of (Tuomisto et al., 2012), though there is a wide range of impact variation
an elusive concept. This explains why some experts in the field have between different impact categories within both types of farming sys-
consistently argued in favour of developing sustainability indicators, be- tems. Nevertheless, inferior yields per hectare and reduced economic
cause it “pulls the discussion of sustainability away from abstract competitiveness of organic versus conventional farming is an issue
that frequently places organic systems at disadvantage and can neutral-
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Applied Economics II, Faculty of Economics,
ize some of their environmental benefits (Beltrán-Esteve and
University of Valencia, Campus de Tarongers, 46022 Valencia, Spain. Reig-Martínez, 2014; De Ponti et al., 2012; Offermann and Nieberg,
E-mail address: mercedes.beltran@uv.es (M. Beltrán-Esteve). 2000). Therefore, it is of paramount importance on both scientific and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.01.001
0195-9255/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127 117

policy-making grounds to perform a joint evaluation of the economic introduce two main methodological changes. Firstly, we introduce a
returns and environmental impacts produced by farms operating new approach in the LCA-DEA methodology to assess eco-efficiency di-
under conventional and organic agricultural systems, in order to estab- rectly in terms of the potential reduction in producers' environmental
lish a sound basis for a comprehensive comparison of the two systems. impacts, including savings due not only to technical efficiency, but
The concept of eco-efficiency has received significant attention in the also stemming from the use of inputs with less environmental impact.
sustainable development literature because it provides researchers Secondly, we compare the eco-efficiency of production systems that op-
and stakeholders with a useful tool to perform this comparison erate under different technological constraints. In doing so we take ad-
(Govindan et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2014). vantage of the use of metafrontier (MF), which allows us to compare the
According to the OECD (1998, p. 7), eco-efficiency expresses performance of groups of producers using different technologies. More-
over, the use of directional distance functions (DDF) allows us to define
“the efficiency with which ecological resources are used to meet hu-
a set of eco-efficiency indicators that respond to a variety of interests of
man needs. It can be interpreted as the relationship between one
researchers and policy-makers, and to highlight the strengths and
output and one input: the output represents the value of the goods
weaknesses of each production unit and technology with respect to spe-
or services produced by a company, industry or economy as a whole,
cial features of its environmental performance.1
while the input represents the sum of environmental pressures gen-
The empirical analysis reported in this paper aims to compare the
erated by the company, industry or economy”.
eco-efficiency of Spanish conventional and organic citrus farming sys-
As a result, eco-efficiency can be interpreted as a ratio or coefficient tems. We start by using LCA methodology to assess six different types
that measures the relationship between the economic outcome of a pro- of farm-level environmental impacts, including impact of cultivation
duction unit (i.e. sales value, value added, output, etc.) and its environ- and also that from the manufacturing of inputs. We then adopt a ratio
mental impact (WBCSD, 2000). indicator of eco-efficiency defined at farm level, where the value of pro-
The concept of eco-efficiency is connected to the broader notion of duction is related to a composite measure of environmental impacts, as
sustainability, but it must be recognized that an improvement in the defined by WBSCD (2000). Although no self-evident pattern of weights
eco-efficiency coefficient does not necessarily guarantee sustainability exists for this set of environmental impacts, the use of DEA allows an en-
(Huppes and Ishikawa, 2005). In any case, pursuing eco-efficiency re- dogenous computation of weights.
mains important because it is frequently the single most cost-efficient After this introduction, we proceed in Section 2 to explain our meth-
way of reducing environmental impacts, and because targeting im- odological approach, while in Section 3 we show the general features of
provements in eco-efficiency is politically more feasible than both citrus cultivation systems, describe variables and sample data, and
implementing other policy measures that are likely to restrict economic perform LCA. Section 4 is devoted to the computation of the DEA model,
activity (Kuosmanen and Kortelainen, 2005). Also, it must be taken into as well as the presentation and discussion of our results, while Section 5
account that promoting eco-efficiency has a high likelihood of success, sets out the conclusions based on our findings.
as very often companies are not operating at their economic efficiency
frontier. This opens a window of opportunity for management to 2. Methodology
make net cost savings, while simultaneously reducing environmental
impacts (Ekins, 2005). 2.1. An introduction to LCA and DEA methodology
A production unit can be deemed eco-efficient when no improve-
ment can be achieved in relation to any environmental objective with- A basic tenet of our approach is the combination of LCA and DEA
out causing a decline in performance in relation to other methodology to compare eco-efficiency for two technologically hetero-
environmental or economic objectives, thus implying the existence of geneous farming systems: organic and conventional citrus farming. LCA
a ‘best-practice frontier’ acting as a benchmark (Kuosmanen, 2005). was first proposed in the late 1960s and early 1970s and over time has
Computing eco-efficiency ratios at farm level, the environmental and become one of the predominant quantitative tools used to measure en-
economic performance of farmers can be compared with that of their vironmental impacts, while also undergoing a substantial degree of in-
most efficient colleagues operating on the eco-efficient frontier in ternational standardization in the process (Arvanitoyannis, 2008;
order to analyze differences in management and their environmental Chang et al., 2014; Ji and Hong, 2016; Pryshlakivsky and Searcy,
consequences. 2013). LCA is a methodology that basically converts inventory data of
Using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) within a Data Envelopment Analysis outputs and inputs of a system to a reduced number of environmental
(DEA) framework can enhance the eco-efficiency analysis of farming indicators, and traditionally consists of four phases: goal and scope def-
systems insofar as LCA provides a broader perspective of the environ- inition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
mental consequences of production. A widely-used definition of LCA and interpretation.2
states that When the analysis of the environmental performance is focused on
the performance of a productive sector as a whole, LCA has been fre-
“LCA is a tool for the analysis of the environmental burden of prod- quently applied to average inventory data. Nevertheless, data variability
ucts at all stages in their life cycle […] covers all types of impacts up- concerning operational tasks may lead to high standard deviations in
on the environment, including extraction of different types of some environmental impacts, thus calling into question the reliability
resources, emission of hazardous substances and different types of of the whole exercise. The greater the number of individual observa-
land use” (Guinée et al., 2004, pp. 5-6). tions to which the LCA is applied, the more representative is the analy-
sis, but if not synthesized in any way, results are unlikely to be used as a
In the last decade a burgeoning stream of literature has approached basis for decision-making. This practical shortcoming has been one of
the analysis of the environmental impact of farming and agro-food in- the main arguments for a joint implementation of LCA and DEA, in
dustry by using a combined LCA-DEA methodology (see, for example, order to handle information from a large number of individual
Avadí et al., 2014; Iribarren et al., 2010, 2011; Khoshnevisan et al.,
2015; Lozano et al., 2009, 2010; Lorenzo-Toja et al., 2015; 1
Van Passel and Meul (2012) point to the importance of performing sustainability anal-
Mohammadi et al., 2013, 2015; Sanjuán et al., 2011; Vázquez-Rowe et ysis at different levels (i.e., farm and sector level) in order to provide a better support in
al., 2010, 2012). The conventional LCA-DEA approach assesses the decision making.
2
See Bidstrup (2015) for an analysis of the usefulness of life cycle thinking in impact as-
change in environmental impacts arising from the achievement of tech- sessment, Guinée et al. (2004) for a detailed operational description of LCA, Finnveden
nical efficiency in the production process. However, technical efficiency et al. (2009) for a thorough review of recent developments in LCA methodology, and
does not necessarily mean eco-efficiency, and this has led us to Rüdenauer et al. (2005) for a presentation of LCA as a method of eco-efficiency analysis.
118 M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127

production processes and environmental impacts, and to perform eco- less waste, and to an improvement in eco-efficiency. Nevertheless, tech-
efficiency analysis, thus avoiding the use of average inventory data nically efficient DMUs may display widely different input mixes and
(Iribarren et al., 2011; Lozano et al., 2009). may consequently give rise to widely different levels of environmental
DEA is a nonparametric technique originally designed to compute impacts (Hoang and Alauddin, 2012). Therefore, technical efficiency
efficiency indices for a number of public or private entities (Charnes et does not necessarily mean eco-efficiency, thus requiring a new ap-
al., 1978). DEA defines the efficiency score of a decision making unit proach in the implementation of LCA-DEA methodology.
(DMU) by the value of a ratio that transforms its input vector into an Our methodological approach is framed within the line of research
output vector. The weights employed for the aggregation of inputs work that considers environmental impacts as inputs in conventional
and outputs are determined endogenously through a mathematical op- DEA models and defines an eco-efficiency indicator that simultaneously
timization exercise in which each DMU's performance is compared with addresses the economic behavior and the environmental performance
the productive behavior of some other DMUs in the sample that are of the units analyzed (Kuosmanen and Kortelainen, 2005). In such an
deemed efficient. The optimization program chooses these weights in impact-oriented DEA optimization model, technically efficient DMUs
order to obtain the best score for the DMU being analyzed; this is why may display different environmental performances while still maintain-
the DEA approach has been called a ‘benefit of the doubt’ approach ing the same economic outcome and, therefore, may display markedly
(Cherchye et al., 2007).3 Furthermore, DEA endogenous weighting has different eco-efficiency scores. The avoidance of operational inputs as
facilitated the employment of this technique in order to address the en- DEA elements is also convenient because it prevents the extreme het-
vironmental consequences of production processes, and the DEA litera- erogeneity in the input mix that may represent a substantial obstacle
ture currently boasts a large number of papers dealing with for computing meaningful eco-efficiency scores in a DEA model
environmental issues.4 (Iribarren et al., 2015).
In the last decade there has been a growing body of literature that In this paper, first we use LCA to determine the potential environ-
uses a combined LCA-DEA methodology to analyze the environmental mental impact arising from each DMU production process. Then, in a
impacts of economic activity. This methodology allows, as noted second stage, we proceed to a DEA-based eco-efficiency analysis to
above, performing LCA using individualized inventories at production compare the mix of economic outcomes obtained, and potential envi-
unit level, synthetize environmental impacts and economic perfor- ronmental impacts exerted, by individual producers. In order to com-
mance, and compute eco-efficiency indicators that can be of help for de- pute DMU's relative eco-efficiency score the benchmark corresponds
cision making. Most researchers have approached the combined use of to those DMUs operating on the technological frontier (i.e. the eco-effi-
DEA and LCA in two basic steps (Lozano et al., 2009). First, inputs and cient producers). Furthermore, the use of DDF allows us to take the anal-
outputs obtained from the inventory analysis (i.e. CO2 emissions) are ysis a step further and to assess not only the global eco-efficiency of a
employed in a DEA-based production model to assess the technical effi- DMU, but also the eco-efficiency displayed in the management of partic-
ciency of each DMU, and then to determine the projected efficient ular environmental impact categories. Moreover, as we pointed out in
input/output levels for inefficient DMUs. In a second stage, LCA is per- the introduction, this eco-efficiency analysis accounts for technological
formed for the virtual or projected efficient input/output levels, and heterogeneity between groups of DMUs by using the concept of the
also for observed levels, and the results are compared. Researchers metafrontier as an envelope of the different group frontiers, thus
then draw conclusions concerning the unnecessary environmental im- allowing a comparison between the eco-efficiency of individual group
pacts resulting from a lack of technical efficiency in the production pro- technologies and the metatechnology (O'Donnell et al., 2008). Fig. 1
cess and are able to assess the eco-efficiency of the observed production (see Section 3.2) provides a brief description of the stages in our imple-
processes. Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2010) have summarized the required mentation of LCA-DEA eco-efficiency analyses.
operational use of DEA and LCA in five consecutive phases (pp. 277–
281); this sequence of operations has set a methodological standard, 2.2. Eco-efficiency and DEA methodology
which has been followed in the literature with minor changes (Avadí
et al., 2014; Iribarren et al., 2011; Mohammadi et al., 2013, 2015; In this Section we describe the building blocks of our methodological
Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012). Notwithstanding, sometimes researchers approach, introducing the concepts and mathematical programs used to
that follow this approach have been forced to deal with a problem of quantitatively measure eco-efficiency and which provide the basis for
heterogeneity in the characteristics of different varieties within the an assessment of eco-efficiency at farming system level.
same category of inputs, and have resorted to specific ad-hoc methods
to assure homogeneous quantification, obtaining a direct environmen- 2.2.1. Eco-efficiency, metatechnology, and the directional metadistance
tal benchmarking for these inputs (Avadí et al., 2014; Lorenzo-Toja et function
al., 2015). We adapt the methodological approach in Beltrán-Esteve et al.
This traditional approach to eco-efficiency analysis based on the (2014) to compute farm-level eco-efficiency for a set of citrus farms
combination of LCA and DEA, represents an important contribution to made up of two sub-sets of organic and conventional farms, and to
eco-efficiency analysis because permits a thorough environmental char- draw comparisons regarding the eco-efficiency of both farming
acterization of production units, using LCA, and shows a path for effi- systems.
ciency improvement, using DEA. Another approach in the LCA-DEA We assume that we are able to observe the economic performance of
literature consists of three stages to compute, for each DMU in the sam- a set of k = 1, …, K producers, represented by the output economic
ple, efficiency scores and target DMUs using both input data and also the value v, and their environmental performance, represented by a series
potential environmental impacts (Iribarren et al., 2010; Lozano et al., of n = 1, …, N damaging impacts on the environment, denoted by the
2010). vector d = (d1, …, dN).
Our own approach starts from the recognition that correcting tech- Eco-efficiency is defined as a ratio between economic value and an
nical inefficiency normally leads to lower emissions of pollutants and aggregate of damaging environmental impacts arising from farms' eco-
nomic activity; it represents a type of environmental-productivity ratio
approach (Huppes and Ishikawa, 2005). Formally, for a producer k, eco-
3
A detailed explanation of the methodology of DEA is given in Cooper et al. (2007). efficiency is
4
Allen (1999) outlined the potential as well as the difficulties of using DEA in an ecolog-
ical context. In addition, Dyckhoff and Allen (2001), and Zhou et al. (2008) have surveyed
and classified 100 studies published within this rapidly-growing stream of research, be-
Economic Valuek v
tween 1983 and 2006. Zhang and Choi (2014) have surveyed the use of DDF for the anal- Eco‐efficiencyk ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
ysis of environmental topics. Damaging Environmental Impactsk DðdÞ
M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127 119

Fig. 1. Phases in the LCA_DEA analysis of citrus farming systems eco-efficiency DMDF and DDF show the distance to the MF and the GF, respectively, high values reflecting high farm's eco-
inefficiencies, while a value of zero indicates eco-efficiency. As regard farming system's eco-efficiency, MTR shows the GF closeness to the MF with a MTR = 1 indicating full eco-efficiency.

D being an aggregator function of the N damaging environmental environmental impact requirement metaset (ERMS), which displays all
impacts incorporated into a single score. The most common aggregator the combinations of damaging environmental impacts, d, that enable a
function is a linearly weighted average of particular impacts. producer to obtain a minimal economic value of v,
While some studies may weight environmental impacts with exter-
nal information based on expert opinion, in this paper, weights of envi- ERMS ðvÞ ¼ hd j ðv; dÞ ∈ Ti ð2Þ
ronmental impacts are generated endogenously at the producer level
using DEA, which shows the overall performance of each producer in where T represents all the feasible combinations of economic value and
the most favorable light. We are thus using eco-efficiency as a relative environmental impacts given the present state of the technology.
concept, in which the optimal or efficient environmental impact is The directional metadistance function (DMDF) provides another rep-
largely subject to technological constraints and a producer's eco-effi- resentation of the metatechnology5 and is a very flexible tool for
ciency should reflect its performance relative to the other producers in assessing eco-efficiency (Picazo-Tadeo et al., 2012), measuring the
the same industry (Chen, 2014).
For a given industry (i.e. citrus farming) we define the
metatechnology as the envelopment of all known technologies 5
The theory of directional distance function, introduced by Chambers et al. (1998), is
(Hayami and Ruttan, 1970). It can be represented by the damaging summarized by Färe and Grosskopf (2000).
120 M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127

distance with respect to the metafrontier6 of a particular observation (v, The optimization program required to compute the specific direc-
d), along a path defined by the researcher by selecting the direction vec- tional metadistance function for firm k′ in expression (6), in which
tor, g = (gv, −gd). Formally, only a group of environmental impacts, i, is being reduced is,
0
DMDF½v; d; g ¼ ðgv ; −gd Þ ¼ Suphβ j ðd−βgd Þ ∈ ERMSðv þ βgv Þ i: ð3Þ maximize 0 βki
0
k ∈ k ¼ 1; …; K ð7Þ
βki ;λ k

The DMDF measures the potential increase in economic value, in a


direction gv, and the simultaneous potential reduction of damaging en- subject to:
vironmental impacts in a direction −gd. Making use of its flexibility in 0 K
terms of defining the direction vector, we can build up two main vk ≤∑k¼1 λk vk ðiÞ
kinds of eco-efficiency indicators, both of which evaluate a potential re-   0
0 K
k k
duction in damaging environmental impacts while keeping economic 1−βki di ≥∑k¼1 λk di i ∈ n; i ∉ −i ðiiÞ
value constant.
First, we specify the direction vector as gall = (gv, −gd) = (0, −d), k0
d−i ≥∑k¼1 λk d−i
K k
−i ∈ n ðiiiÞ
and compute the maximum proportional reduction of all damaging envi-
ronmental inputs consistent with the metatechnology while maintain-
ing economic value. This is what we call radial eco-efficiency, and the λk ≥0 k ¼ 1; …; K ðivÞ
directional metadistance function can be represented in this case as:
βk′
i , represents the maximum potential reduction than can be
DMDFall ½v; d; gall ¼ ð0; −dÞ ¼ Suphβall j ð1− βall Þd ∈ ERMSðv Þi: ð4Þ achieved by farm k′ with regards to the environmental impact, or
group of impacts, i, without negatively affecting economic value or the
The value taken by function (4) is always equal to or greater than other impacts. In this case, if the value of βk′
i is 0.55, this figure indicates
zero and less than one. A score of zero indicates eco-efficiency, meaning that producer k′ can reduce damaging impacts i by 55% without increas-
that proportional reduction in damaging impacts is not feasible without ing any other environmental impact or reducing production value. The
a concomitant decrease in economic value, whereas increasing values of potential maximum reduction for a specific impact i is at least as great
this function imply a higher potential for environmental impacts reduc- as the maximum proportional reduction. Thus, if it is feasible to propor-
tion and a greater eco-inefficiency of that producer. tionally reduce the whole set of environmental impacts by 40%, it is also
Within a DEA framework, the mathematical optimization program feasible to reduce any single impact (or group of impacts) by at least
required to calculate the directional metadistance function for farm k′ 40%.
in expression (4) is:
2.2.2. Group technology, directional distance function and eco-efficiency
0 0 We have defined the metatechnology as the envelope of all known
maximize 0 βkall k ∈ k ¼ 1; …; K ð5Þ
βkall ;λk technologies available in an industry. Taking into account the fact that,
due to constraints imposed by technical or legal considerations, not all
subject to: known technologies are available to producers belonging to certain
groups, we can define group technologies and eco-efficiency scores
0 K
vk ≤∑k¼1 λk vk ðiÞ with respect to the technology of group to which a particular producer
belongs (O'Donnell et al., 2008).
 0
 0 Producers in our sample may be split into several groups. For each
k K k
1−βkall dn ≥∑k¼1 λk dn n ¼ 1; …; N ðiiÞ
group h, we can define the group technology, Th, as all the feasible com-
binations of economic value and damaging environmental impacts that
λk ≥0 k ¼ 1; …; K ðiiiÞ can be generated by farms in group h. The DDFs can be used to assess
the eco-efficiency of producers in group h with respect to their own
βk′
all, represents the maximum potential reduction that can be achieved group h technology.
by farm k′ when all environmental impacts are taken together. By way The maximum proportional reduction in all the damaging environ-
of example, if the value of βk′
all is 0.40, it means that farm k′ can reduce mental impacts without incurring any reduction in economic value ob-
all its environmental impacts by 40% and maintain the same economic tained by a producer k′ belonging to group h with respect to his own
value, when using the most environmental-friendly available group h technology, βhk′ all , is obtained by solving for k′ the optimization
techniques. program (5) in which K represents the producers of group h. This is
Second, we define a kind of impact-specific eco-efficiency indicators, the radial group eco-efficiency measure. In a similar way, for a producer
whereby we aim to assess the maximum potential reduction for a par- k′ belonging to group h, the maximum potential reduction in one envi-
ticular environmental impact (or a group of environmental impacts), ronmental impact (or in a group of them) i, while other impacts –i and
denoted by i, while the remaining environmental impacts, denoted by economic value, v, stay constant, with respect to their own group tech-
−i, and the economic value, v, are kept unchanged. We specify the di- nology, βhk′
i , is obtained by solving for k′ the optimization program (7)
rection vector as gi = (gv, − gd) = [0, −(di, 0)], and the directional where K represents the producers of the group h. This is the impact-spe-
metadistance function as, cific group eco-efficiency measure.
It is worth noting that the DDFs computed in regard to the group h
DMDFi ½v; d; gi ¼ ð0; h−di ; 0iÞ technology are always equal to or lower than the DMDFs computed rel-
¼ Suph βi j ½ð1−βi Þdi ; d −i  ∈ ERMSðv Þi ð6Þ ative to the metatechnology, with the difference being due to group h
technology relative eco-efficiency.
This function is also lower-bounded to zero, which denotes eco- We have defined eco-efficiency indicators as the distance of a pro-
efficiency, and its value is always equal to or greater than the radial ducer to the best-practice frontier; as such, the higher the value of βk′
eco-efficiency score in expression (4). the lesser the eco-efficiency of k′. A zero value means that producer k′
is at the technological frontier and no reduction in impacts is feasible.
6
The metafrontier represents the eco-efficient combinations of economic value and On the other hand, a value of 0.20 means that the producer can reduce
damaging environmental impacts given the state of the technology, T. his environmental impact by 20% without reducing production; in other
M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127 121

words, an eco-efficient use of the available technology would allow him 3. Ecological and conventional citrus farming: data and variables
to obtain the same economic value with only 80% of the environmental
damage currently generated. This last formulation is a more convenient 3.1. Differential characteristics of organic versus conventional citrus farm-
way of looking at eco-efficiency; in this way we obtain (1 − βk′), the ing in Spain
value of which will be one for an eco-efficient producer, indicating
that 100% of its environmental impacts are required to produce the Organic citriculture exhibits technical aspects that are different from
same economic value. those in conventional citrus farming, the main difference being that or-
ganic farms cannot employ chemically-synthesized fertilizers, but in-
2.2.3. Metatechnology ratios and group technology eco-efficiency stead use compost manure, supplemented with complex organic
assessment materials. Organic farmers cannot rely on synthetic pesticides to keep
Rather than simply providing an appraisal of producer performance pests in check, therefore they have to resort to the use of insect preda-
regarding economic-environmental trade-offs, we contribute an assess- tors and the application of a limited type of non-synthetic pesticides.
ment of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative group technol- An organic citrus orchard maintains biodiversity through cover crops
ogies in terms of their eco-efficiency in the management of overall or (e.g. alfalfa, wild grasses), and by using hedgerows, which host popula-
specific damaging environmental impacts. The metatechnology ratio tions of beneficial insects and birds, while also preventing wind damage.
(MTR) assesses how close the technology of group h is to the unrestricted Pruning remains are crushed and left as waste compost on the surface in
technological frontier or metatechnology (Beltrán-Esteve et al., 2014). organic farms, thereby restoring a significant quantity of nutrients. By
When considering a direction vector that proportionally reduces all contrast, the conventional practice of burning pruning waste causes
the damaging environmental impacts, the radial metatechnology ratio large losses of organic matter and increases CO2 emissions. Also, organic
for group h is formalized as: citrus farms retain moisture better and make better use of limited water
resources.7
0
k The Valencian region is the main citrus growing area in Spain. Ac-
hk0 Metaeco‐efficiencyall
Metatechnology ratioall ½v; d; gall ¼ ð0; −dÞ ¼ 0
cording to official statistics (MARM, 2010), in 2010 a total of
hk
  Eco‐efficiencyall
0 178,361 ha were devoted to citrus farming in the Valencian region,
1−βkall
¼  ð8Þ while organic citrus groves were estimated to cover only 1004 ha.
0
1−βhk
all
Therefore organic citrus orchards only represent a small share of total
citrus farmland.
The limited expansion of organic citrus farming in Spain can be ex-
Going back to our example, farm k′ with a distance to the
plained by a small domestic market for organic citrus fruits and the pre-
metafrontier of 0.40, has a metaeco-efficiency of 0.60, while the
dominance of intensive production practices, and also by the difficulties
group-specific eco-efficiency of this farm is of 0.80, reflecting a distance
in isolating the small-sized organic citrus farms from conventional plan-
of 0.20 to the group h frontier. Therefore, the MTR of farm k′ as a mem-
tations, along with higher variable costs (Peris and Juliá, 2006). Despite
ber of group h is 0.75, indicating that only 75% of the environmental im-
these difficulties, some farmers have converted to organic agriculture.
pacts corresponding to the group h frontier would be needed if the
Financial aspects play a scarcely relevant role concerning the adoption
production were operated with unrestricted technology. By the same
of organic farming and “regarding the motivations that citrus farmers
token, the distance of group h frontier to the metafrontier is 0.25, imply-
manifest as the main forces that have driven their decision to go organic,
ing a 25% excess in damaging impacts.
environmental concerns (85.6%), concern about future generations
Alternatively, we can assess the eco-efficiency performance in the
(84.8%), interest in producing high quality products (84.8%) as well as
management of a specific environmental impact, or group of impacts,
reducing the dependence on agrochemical products (81.6%) are of out-
i, relative to the group h frontier, and the metaeco-efficiency with re-
standing importance” (Beltrán-Esteve et al., 2014; pp. 905–906).
spect to the metafrontier. We thus obtain, in a very similar fashion,
the impact-specific metatechnology ratio for the group h, formally, for im-
3.2. Data and variables: the application of LCA methodology
pact i:

hk
0 The data used in this study come from a survey carried out by the au-
Metatechnology ratioi ½v; d;gi ¼ ð0;h−di ; 0iÞ
0 thors in the framework of a previous project focused on the study of cit-
1−βki
0
k
Metaeco‐efficiencyi rus farming in the region of Valencia. All 203 certified organic growers
¼ 0 ¼ 0
 ð9Þ
Eco‐efficiencyi
hk
1−βhk were contacted in 2009 to respond to a questionnaire, and 153 agreed
i
to be interviewed. Also, a total of 129 conventional growers answered
the questionnaire from a control group of 200 which were surveyed.
Impact-specific metatechnology ratios assess how close the group h The database was subsequently depurated to remove missing data
frontier is to the metafrontier in terms of the management of the dam- and some outliers. The final sample comprised 98 organic citrus farms
aging environmental impact i. and 96 conventional ones.
This approach provides a useful breakdown of a measure of eco-effi- For each of these growers, we measured their economic perfor-
ciency defined with respect to the metafrontier, the metaeco-efficiency, mance by the value of their citrus production, and their environmental
into the product of the eco-efficiency with respect to the group h fron- performance by six environmental impacts resulting from a Life Cycle
tier and the metatechnology ratio of group-h, which constitutes a Analysis following the usual phases, briefly summarized below. Fig. 1
group-h technology eco-efficiency assessment (O'Donnell et al., 2008). shows the phases in our application of LCA-DEA eco-efficiency analyses
In this manner, it is possible to separate the eco-inefficiencies that can to citrus farming systems.
be attributed to the producer's inadequate management, within a As regards boundary and functional unit determination, in this paper
group-specific technological context, from those responding to the the boundary of the system has been defined in order to include the pro-
shortcomings of the technology used. This relationship can be formal- duction of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, the use of farm machin-
ized as: ery (including the production of fuels), and citrus cultivation, which
0 0 0
includes tasks involving the application of inputs. On the other hand,
k hk hk
Metaeco‐efficiencyi ¼ Eco‐efficiencyi Metatechnology ratioi ð10Þ
7
See Domínguez-Gento (2008) and Porcuna et al. (2010) for technical details; Beltrán-
for impact-specific indicators and in a similar way for radial indicators. Esteve et al. (2012) for farmers' reasons to go organic.
122 M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127

Table 1
Sample description.

Conventional farms (96) Organic farms (98) Equality of means t-test

Mean SD Mean SD t-test p Value

Economic performance
Income (€ ha−1) 6325 3417 4573 3009 3.787 0.0002

Ecological performance
Global warming potential (Kg CO2 eq. ha−1) 17,853 9594 2285 1598 15.687 0.0000
Ozone layer depletion potential (Kg R11 eq.ha−1) 994 547 32 18 17.244 0.0000
Eutrophication potential (Kg PO3−
4 eq. ha−1) 56 26 63 59 −1.139 0.2568
Ecotoxicity (CTUeco ha−1) 663,799 438,024 270 535 14.842 0.0000
Human toxicity, carcinogenic (CTUh 10−6 ha−1) 662 420 3 5 15.367 0.0000
Human toxicity, non-carcinogenic (CTUh 10−6 ha−1) 2869 1607 125 81 16.708 0.0000

we have disregarded all processes related to the production of capital corresponds to farmers' performance, and how much is attributable to
goods such as machinery and buildings. The functional unit adopted is the characteristics of each farming system. Answering these questions
one hectare. Concerning inventory analysis, all inputs (materials and en- demands a thorough eco-efficiency analysis.
ergy) and outputs (emissions to air, water or soil) associated with the
production system and with the other stages within the system's 4. Results
boundaries have been collected, and are expressed in terms of the func-
tional unit. Regarding impact assessment, six different impact categories From the data of the variables listed in Table 1 for the 194 farms in
have been considered in this paper: global warming and ozone layer de- our sample, and using the DEA methodology described in Section 2.2,
pletion, both of them of a global nature, eutrophication and ecotoxicity we have calculated directional metadistance functions (DMDF) and di-
affecting flora and fauna, which have a more located impact on the en- rectional distance functions (DDF) for each farm. We have proceeded
vironment, and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic human toxicity (i.e. in two steps. First, solving program [5] we have obtained metadistance
impact on human health).8 The impact for each category is quantified by functions relative to the metatechnology (expression (4)) in a direction
multiplying the aggregated resources used and the aggregated emis- that radially reduces all environmental impacts for each citrus farmer k′.
sions of each substance obtained in the inventory stage by a character- In addition, program [5] has also been used to calculate radial distances
ization factor. This factor is specific for each impact category to which of each grower k′ to its own group frontier, but in this case only farms
it can potentially contribute (Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2005). In belonging to each particular farming system, either organic or conven-
particular, we have used CML 2001 method (Guinèe et al., 2001; tional, have been considered in the corresponding optimization exercise.
Guinée et al., 2004) to calculate impacts belonging to global warming, Then, using expression (8) we have computed the metatechnology ratio
ozone layer depletion and eutrophication potential categories, and (MTR).
USEtox to calculate ecotoxicity and human toxicity (Rosenbaum et al., In a second step, program [7] has been used to compute impact-spe-
2008).9 cific eco-efficiency indicators for each farm k′. To this end, we have cal-
Table 1 outlines the main descriptive statistics of the variables used culated the DMDF (expression (6)) with respect to all citrus farms, and
in our eco-efficiency analysis for both citrus systems while Figs. 2 and the DDF with respect to farms of each group, as well as the correspond-
3 give their histograms. First, concerning economic performance, it ing MTR. Specifically, nine directions have been specified. One for each
should be noted that conventional farms perform significantly better environmental impact considered individually, and three more in
as a result of their higher yields, and this is not offset by a higher sale which the impacts' effects on the environment are grouped according
price of organic products. Revenue per hectare in organic farms to their global nature (global warming potential and ozone layer deple-
amounts to, on average, only three-quarters that obtained by conven- tion are jointly considered), local or regional nature (eutrophication and
tional farms. Second, as opposed to this economic disadvantage, accord- ecotoxicity are taken together), and their effect on human health (carci-
ing to LCA impact categories organic farms display a much more nogenic and non-carcinogenic human toxicity). Recall that in each of
favorable balance in all environmental and health impacts, except for eu- these cases, what is evaluated corresponds to the maximum potential
trophication, for which no statistically significant differences can be ob-
served. Notable differences appear in ecotoxicity and in human
carcinogenic toxicity, where organic farms generate, on average, less
than 1% of the impacts generated by conventional ones. Even for global
warming potential, where differences are not so marked, the advantage
offered by organic farms is still overwhelming, generating only 13% of
the impacts of conventional farms.
But is organic farming more eco-efficient than conventional farm-
ing? Or rather, can the better economic results of conventional farms
outweigh their poorer environmental performance? In any case, given
the significant deviations from the mean in all variables, it seems essen-
tial to isolate which part of the results obtained by different farms

8
Although we wished to consider a broader impact analysis of natural resources deple-
tion, in particular concerning water use, lack of information on this issue in most of the
surveyed farms made us give up. As far as concerns the environmental effects of land
use transition and erosion problems, they are not particularly disturbing aspects in the
case of citrus orchards in the region of Valencia since cultivation takes place on flat land
and farming has taken place in the area for centuries.
9
More detailed technical information concerning the implementation of LCA is provid-
ed in an annex. Fig. 2. Economic performance: income histogram by type of farm.
M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127 123

Fig. 3. Ecological performance: impact categories histograms by type of farm.

reduction in the specified impact or impacts, while the other impacts results with only 9.1% of the damaging environmental impacts observed
and economic outcome remain constant. Table 2 shows the average of for this type of farm. The corresponding figure for organic farms is 42%.
these estimates for farms operating in each of the two systems. Using expression (10), these relevant differences can be explained ei-
Radial indicators show maximum proportional reduction in all dam- ther by the different eco-efficiency performance of producers of each
aging environmental impacts taken together (Fig. 4). The first thing that system (1 – DDF), or by technological differences between systems in
stands out when calculating this type of indicator is the high eco-ineffi- terms of eco-efficiency, as reflected in the MTR (Fig. 4 panel b). As we
ciency of citrus production. When farms' performance is benchmarked have seen, the average eco-efficiency scores within each farming system
with regard to best practices in their own farming system, we find are fairly similar, but what if we compare the eco-efficiency of the two
that conventional farms could reduce all environmental impacts by technological systems using the metafrontier as a benchmark? The
54% with no decline in their economic performance, while the potential MTR of the organic farming system takes a unity value, indicating that
reduction of environmental impacts for organic farms amounts on aver- the organic frontier overlaps with the metafrontier (i.e. organic technol-
age to 58%. Thus, the average distance of farms to their most eco-effi- ogy is eco-efficient). By contrast, with an MTR of 0.199, the conventional
cient counterparts within their own system is quite similar (see Fig. 4, system frontier is far from the metafrontier (Fig. 4 right panel b). Even
left panel b). However, it should be noted that the DDF of conventional when used efficiently, conventional technology generates an 80% excess
and organic farms are not directly comparable since they are computed in damaging environmental impacts as compared to those farms
with respect to different reference technologies. In this sense, results deemed most eco-efficient—in this case the set of organic farms operat-
obtained regarding the common metafrontier (DMDF) of both groups ing on the best-practice metafrontier.
of farms, show a different picture: conventional farms could reduce A question may now be raised as to whether these results are equally
pressures by 90.9%, compared to 58% for organic farms (Fig. 4, panel valid when we are concerned only with certain environmental impacts.
a). In other words, if they were to operate as the most eco-efficient It is important to establish whether there are any differences in farm
growers do, conventional farms could achieve the same economic management with regards to different types of impacts taken
124 M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127

Table 2 An assessment of farmers' performance regarding their own tech-


Eco-efficiency indicators (*): Directional metadistance function (DMDF), directional dis- nology reveals that conventional farmers are more eco-efficient when
tance function (DDF) and metatechnology ratio (MTR); averages.
it comes to the joint management of impacts of a regional nature.
Conventional farming Organic farming Underperforming organic growers could reduce environmental impacts
system system of a regional nature by 68.4%, while the potential reduction for conven-
DMDF DDF MTR DMDF DDF MTR tional farmers amounts to 55.5%. On the other hand, no significant
Reduction in all environmental 0.9089 0.5406 0.1993 0.5823 0.5823 1 differences between the two groups appear in either the joint manage-
impacts (Radial) ment of impacts of a global nature or those concerning human toxicity
Impact-specific indicators (see Fig. 5). When we focus on impact-specific DDFs, it must be stressed
Reduction in environmental 0.9720 0.6264 0.0803 0.6190 0.6190 1 that the most eco-efficient management of global warming potential,
impacts of a global nature
Global warming potential 0.9720 0.6683 0.1043 0.7646 0.7646 1
eutrophication and non-carcinogenic human toxicity is by conventional
Ozone depletion potential 0.9843 0.6420 0.0479 0.6451 0.6451 1 farmers, and they are only outperformed by their organic competitors in
Reduction in environmental 0.9156 0.5554 0.1938 0.6838 0.6838 1 the management of carcinogenic human toxicity. The higher levels of
impacts of a regional nature eco-efficiency with respect to their own technology achieved by con-
Eutrophication 0.9156 0.5868 0.2123 0.7788 0.7788 1
ventional producers could be due to the fact that they experience less
Ecotoxicity 0.9997 0.7491 0.0017 0.7488 0.7488 1
Reduction in human toxicity 0.9922 0.6368 0.0232 0.6689 0.6689 1 variability in economic returns, linked in turn to more effective pest
impacts control; we should recall that these farmers face fewer restrictions on
Carcinogenic 0.9981 0.7211 0.0089 0.6858 0.6858 1 the use of pesticides. We get a different picture when farmers' perfor-
Non-carcinogenic 0.9922 0.6399 0.0234 0.7986 0.7986 1 mance is assessed with regards to an unrestricted technology, i.e. the
(*) DMDF and DDF show the distance to the MF and the GF, respectively, high values metatechnology. DMDF show that despite the large potential that still
reflecting high farm's eco-inefficiencies, i.e. potential saving, while a value of zero indicates exists for the reduction in environmental impacts caused by organic
eco-efficiency. As regard farming system's eco-efficiency, MTR shows the GF closeness to
farms, these farms display substantially better metaeco-efficiency
the MF with a MTR = 1 indicating full eco-efficiency (System potential savings can be ob-
tained as ‘1-MTR’). scores than those of conventional farms for all specific indicators
considered.
These results are reflected in MTR, showing a clear superiority in the
individually, and to compute the distance to the metafrontier of each eco-efficiency of the organic technology relative to the conventional one
system's frontier with an impact-specific direction. More interestingly, in all indicators analyzed (Fig. 6). Whatever the environmental impact,
it is also possible to reveal whether organic and conventional technolo- MTR of organic farms take a unity value. On the other hand, the conven-
gies are eco-efficient with respect to a single specific impact. To answer tional system underperforms in comparison, with high eco-inefficient
these questions we look at the impact-specific indicators shown in Table 2. scores in all types of impacts, though with notable differences between

Fig. 4. Farms and farming systems eco-efficiency (Radial): Kernel density estimates DMDF and DDF show the distance to the MF and the GF, respectively, high values reflecting high farm's
eco-inefficiencies, while a value of zero indicates eco-efficiency. As regard farming system's eco-efficiency, a MTR = 1 indicates full eco-efficiency. We observe high differences between
conventional and organic farms eco-inefficiencies (panel a). Notwithstanding (panel b), these differences are not due to differences in management within each group (DDFs are very
similar), but to the use of different technologies (organic system MTR = 1).
M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127 125

Fig. 5. Impact specific farms eco-efficiency with regard the own group technology.

them. The shortest distance from the conventional technology to the in economic performance, and this figure exceeds 95% for impacts relat-
metatechnology occurs in eutrophication, with an MTR of 0.21, meaning ed to the depletion of the ozone layer, ecotoxicity and human toxicity.
that the most efficient performance that conventional farms would be
able to achieve under the restrictions imposed by this technology 5. Conclusions
could still be improved by 79% to reach the performance of farms oper-
ating on the metafrontier. The scores for the other specific indicators We have aimed in this paper to combine LCA and DEA to assess the
show an even greater potential for improvement resulting from a eco-efficiency performance of citrus farmers.
change to organic production. Most empirical research work assessing faming eco-efficiency have
In short, when we quantify the potential benefits to be gained in assumed a common production technology for all farms being analyzed.
terms of eco-efficiency with a shift to organic techniques in citrus pro- Nevertheless, when technological heterogeneity exists, eco-efficiency
duction, the results are striking. An eco-efficient use of green technology scores computed against different and idiosyncratic technological fron-
means, in relation to an eco-efficient conventional technology, a poten- tiers cannot be meaningfully compared. The notion of a metafrontier
tial reduction of environmental impacts of 80% with no resulting decline representing an unrestricted technology that envelops each particular
technology helps to overcome this problem and allows an eco-efficiency
ranking of technologically heterogeneous groups of producers. Compar-
ing the technology of each group with the metatechnology enables us to
assess the relative eco-efficiency of the farming systems. Furthermore,
the use of directional distance functions allows us to assess technologi-
cal differences regarding the management of specific environmental
impacts.
Using observations on the economic performance of a sample of 194
Spanish citrus farms (measured by the value of production) as well as
observations on their environmental performance (measured by six
LCA impacts), we have obtained relevant findings concerning not only
global eco-efficiency in broad terms, but also impact-specific, and
group-of-impacts-specific assessment. Our conclusions point to a high
and similar level of average farmers' eco-inefficiency in both citrus sys-
tems, when compared to the benchmark of their own technology, but
different results are produced when a common metafrontier is adopted
as a reference. Then, conventional farms score much worse than organic
ones. As regards the eco-efficiency of the systems' technology, a
metatechnology ratio of one for the organic technology indicates that
Fig. 6. Impact specific conventional farming systems eco-efficiency The organic farming
system is fully eco-efficient regardless the specific environmental impact considered
the organic frontier overlaps with the metafrontier, i.e., organic technol-
(MTR = 1). Conversely, the conventional farming system is highly eco-inefficient, ogy is fully eco-efficient. On the other hand, there is a large gap between
particularly as regards human toxicity. the conventional farms' best-practice or technological frontier and the
126 M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127

metafrontier, indicating a potential saving in environmental impacts water or groundwater. These fractions depend on the physicochemical
resulting from the conversion to organic farming of around 80%. properties of the pesticide and its form of degradation, which were
Regarding the management of specific environmental impacts by taken from the following databases: Pesticide Footprint Database (UH,
farmers under their own technology, conventional farmers perform bet- 2013), EU Pesticides Database (EC, 2013), OSU Extension Pesticide
ter concerning the eco-efficient joint management of impacts of region- Properties Database (NPIC, 2013) and The Pesticide Manual (McBean,
al nature, particularly eutrophication, and do the worst as regards 2012).
ecotoxicity, while organic farmers manage better the impacts of a global The application of fertilizers in the field causes emissions of NH3,
nature, in particular ozone layer depletion. More interestingly, in rela- N2O, NO3− and PO3− 4 . For the calculation of N2O emissions we applied
tion to the management of specific environmental impacts by farming IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories of Greenhouse Gases (IPCC,
systems when an enveloping metafrontier is adopted as a common 2006). Emissions of NH3 were calculated as in by Bentrup et al.
benchmark, the organic system is eco-efficient irrespective of the im- (2000). Nitrate emissions have been calculated according to MARM
pact analyzed, whereas conventional system distances from the (2010) and leaching of PO34 − was obtained following Nemecek and
metafrontier are very large, in particular as regards human toxicity Kägi (2007).
and ecotoxicity.
These results points firstly to the need for agricultural authorities to
make a substantial effort to improve technical advice to both conven- References
tional and organic citrus farmers, in order to bridge the observed gap Allen, K., 1999. DEA in the ecological context – an overview. In: Westermann, G. (Ed.),
with best environmental practices, which is relatively wide for the aver- Measuring the Efficiency in the Private and Public Service Sector. Gabler, Wiesbaden.
age citrus farmer. Arvanitoyannis, I.S., 2008. ISO 14040: life cycle assessment (LCA) – principles and guide-
lines. In: Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (Ed.), Waste Management for the Food Industries. Aca-
Nevertheless, actively promoting the adoption of organic farming demic Press, Amsterdam.
would undoubtedly improve the balance between economic outcomes Audsley, E., Alber, S., Clift, R., Cowell, S., Crettaz, P., Gaillard, G., Hausheer, J., Jolliett, O.,
and environmental impacts in citrus farming. A stream of research has Kleijn, R., Mortensen, B., Pearce, D., Roger, E., Teulon, H., Weidema, B., van Zeijts, H.,
1997. Harmonisation of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment for Agriculture. Final
concluded that the main obstacles to the diffusion of organic citriculture Report. Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028. European Commission, DG VI Agriculture.
stem from the lower profitability of organic citrus farming (Juliá and Avadí, A., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Fréon, P., 2014. Eco-efficiency assessment of the Peruvian an-
Server, 2000; Peris et al., 2005; Peris and Juliá, 2006). Therefore, produc- choveta steel and wooden fleets using the LCA + DEA framework. J. Clean. Prod. 70,
118–131.
tivity-enhancing improvements in technical efficiency in organic farms
Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2005. Scenario-based environmental assessment of
could substantially boost their competitiveness against more traditional farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 105
conventional farms (Beltrán-Esteve and Reig-Martínez, 2014). (1–2), 127–144.
Beltrán-Esteve, M., Reig-Martínez, E., 2014. Comparing conventional and organic citrus
Finally, we have shown that the eco-efficiency of individual farms,
grower efficiency in Spain. Agric. Syst. 129, 115–123.
and also whole farming systems, could differ substantially concerning Beltrán-Esteve, M., Picazo-Tadeo, A., Reig-Martínez, E., 2012. What makes a citrus farmer
the management of particular environmental pressures from agricultur- go organic? Empirical evidence from Spanish citrus farming. Span. J. Agric. Res. 10
al production. We hope that our use of analytical tools such as the direc- (4), 901–910.
Beltrán-Esteve, M., Gómez-Limón, J.A., Picazo-Tadeo, A.J., Reig-Martínez, E., 2014. A
tional distance function and the metatechnology ratio may highlight metafrontier directional distance function approach to assessing eco-efficiency.
their usefulness and help experts and relevant authorities to focus J. Prod. Anal. 41 (1), 69–83.
their attention on the most demanding environmental problems in Bentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Kuhlmann, H., 2000. Methods to estimate on-field nitro-
gen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sec-
each particular case. tor. Int. J. LCA 6, 349–357.
Bidstrup, M., 2015. Life cycle thinking in impact assessment—current practica and LCA
Acknowledgements gains. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 54, 72–79.
Catalan Office for Climate Change (Oficina Catalana de Canvi Climàtic), 2013v. Guía
práctica para el cálculo de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Generalitat de
Financial support from the European Regional Development Fund Catalunya.
and the Spanish Government, through Project AGL2010-17560-C02- Chambers, R., Chung, Y., Färe, R., 1998. Profit, directional distance functions and Nerlovian
efficiency. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 98 (2), 351–364.
02, is gratefully acknowledged. Chang, D., Lee, C.K.M., Chen, C.H., 2014. Review of life cycle assessment towards sustain-
able product development. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 48–60.
Appendix A. Annex: methods and sources of technical information Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making
units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2, 429–444.
for LCA
Chen, C.M., 2014. Evaluating eco-efficiency with data envelopment analysis: an analytical
reexamination. Ann. Oper. Res. 214, 49–71.
The following impact categories were evaluated through the CML Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., van Puyenbroek, T., 2007. An introduction to ‘benefit
(Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University) methodology: of the doubt’ composite indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 82 (1), 111–145.
Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K., 2007. Data Envelopment Analysis. A Comprehensive
global warming (GWP100a, kg CO2-Eq), ozone layer depletion (OPD Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. second ed.
steady state, kg R11-Eq) and eutrophication (generic, kg PO3− 4 -Eq). On Springer US.
the other hand, freshwater ecotoxicity and human toxicity have been De Ponti, T., Rijk, B., van Ittersum, M.K., 2012. The crop yield gap between organic and
conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 108, 1–9.
assessed by using USEtox (2013). Domínguez-Gento, A., 2008. La citricultura ecológica. Servicio de Asesoramiento a los
Emissions from diesel fuel and gasoline consumption linked to the Agricultores y Ganaderos. Dirección General de Agricultura Ecológica, Consejería de
use of machinery have been estimated from database GaBi 6.0 and Agricultura y Pesca de la Junta de Andalucía, Seville.
Dyckhoff, H., Allen, K., 2001. Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment anal-
from the toolkit for calculating emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) ysis (DEA). Eur. J. Oper. Res. 132, 312–325.
of the Catalan Office for Climate Change (2013) respectively. EC, 2013. EU Pesticides Database. DG SANCO, Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_
For resource consumption and emissions that occur during the pro- pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selection (Accessed 18th October 2013).
EEA, European Environment Agency, 2006. Integration of Environment into EU Agricul-
duction of fertilizers and pesticides used in citrus cultivation we have ture Policy – The IRENA Indicator-Based Assessment Report, EEA Report 2/2006.
made use of the database Ecoinvent 2.1 (Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Copenhagen.
Inventories, 2014). But for those pesticides whose production is not in- EEA, European Environmental Agency, 2005. Agriculture and environment in EU-15 – the
IRENA indicator Report. EEA Report 6/2005. Copenhagen.
cluded in Ecoinvent, we followed the guidelines proposed by Audsley et
Ekins, P., 2005. Eco-efficiency. Motives, drivers and economic implications. J. Ind. Ecol. 9
al. (1997). Moreover, data provided by Patyk and Reinhardt (1997) (4), 12–14.
were employed for some types of inorganic fertilizers whose production Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., 2000. Theory and applications of directional distance functions.
is not included in Ecoinvent. J. Prod. Anal. 13 (2), 93–103.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A.,
Calculation of emissions from pesticide application required previ- Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent development in life cycle assessment.
ous allocation of the pesticides fraction going to plants, soil, surface J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1–21.
M. Beltrán-Esteve et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 63 (2017) 116–127 127

Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Jabbour, C.J.C., Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2014. Eco-efficiency based green OECD, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1999n. Environmental
supply chain management: current status and opportunities. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 233, indicators for agriculture. Concepts and Framework. 1 (Paris).
293–298. OECD, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1999n. Environmental
Guinèe, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., indicators for agriculture. Issues and Design. 2 (Paris).
Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Duin, R., OECD, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001n. Environmental
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Lindeijer, E., Roorda, A.A.H., Weidema, B.P., 2001. Life Cycle Assess- indicators for agriculture. Methods and Results. 3 (Paris).
ment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Characterisation and Normalisa- Offermann, F., Nieberg, H., 2000. Economic Performance of Organic Farms in Europe, Or-
tion Factors. ganic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy. 5. University of Hohenheim, Depart-
Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., ment of Farm Economics, Stuttgart.
Wegener, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Duin, R., Huijbregts, Patyk, A., Reinhardt, G., 1997. Düngemittel-Energie-und Stoffstromsbilanzen. Friedr.
M.A.J., Lindeijer, E., Roorda, A.A.H., van der Ven, B.L., Weidema, B.P., 2004. Handbook Vieweg & Sohn Publishers, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany.
on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer Academic Peris, E.M., Juliá, J.F., 2006. Production costs of the organic Clementine crop in the region
Publishers, New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow. of Valencia (Spain). Span. J. Agric. Res. 4 (1), 17–25.
Hayami, Y., Ruttan, V., 1970. Agricultural productivity differences among countries. Am. Peris, E.M., Juliá, J.F., Balasch, S., 2005. Estudio de las diferencias de costes de producción
Econ. Rev. 60 (5), 895–911. del cultivo de naranjo convencional, ecológico e integrado en la Comunidad
Hoang, V.N., Alauddin, M., 2012. Input-orientated data envelopment analysis framework Valenciana mediante el análisis factorial discriminante. Economía Agraria y Recursos
for measuring and decomposing economic, environmental and ecological efficiency: Naturales 5 (10), 69–87.
an application to OECD agriculture. Environ. Resour. Econ. 51, 431–452. Picazo-Tadeo, A.J., Beltrán-Esteve, M., Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2012. Assessing eco-efficiency
Huppes, G., Ishikawa, M., 2005. A framework for quantified eco-efficiency analysis. J. Ind. with directional distance functions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 220 (3), 798–809.
Ecol. 9 (4), 25–41. Porcuna, J.L., Gaude, M.I., Castejón, P., Domínguez, A., 2010. Guía de agricultura ecológica
IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. volume 4: agriculture, de cítricos. Proyecto Mayas. Federación de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad
forestry and other land use. Chapter 11: N2O emissions from managed soils, and Valenciana, Valencia, Spain.
CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. T
Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In- Roy. Soc. B 365, 2959–2971.
stitute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan. Pretty, J., 2008. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. T
Iribarren, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Further potentials in the Roy. Soc. B 363, 447–465.
joint implementation of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. Sci. Pryshlakivsky, J., Searcy, C., 2013. Fifteen years of ISO 14040: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 57,
Total Environ. 408, 5265–5272. 115–123.
Iribarren, D., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2011. Benchmarking environmental Rao, N.H., Rogers, P.P., 2006. Assessment of agricultural sustainability. Curr. Sci. India 91
and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Sci. Total (4), 439–448.
Environ. 409, 1786–1798. Rigby, D., Howlett, D., Woodhouse, P., 2000. A review of indicators of agricultural and
Iribarren, D., Marvuglia, A., Hild, P., Guiton, M., Popovici, E., Benetto, E., 2015. Life cycle as- rural livelihood sustainability. Working Paper 1. Institute for Development Policy
sessment and data envelopment analysis approach for the selection of building com- and Management, University of Manchester.
ponents according to their environmental impact efficiency: a case study for external Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R.,
walls. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 707–716. Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J.,
Ji, C., Hong, T., 2016. Comparative analysis of methods for integrating various environ- Schuhmacher, M., van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., 2008. USEtox—the UNEP-
mental impacts as a single index in life cycle assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity
Rev. 57, 123–133. and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
Juliá, J.F., Server, R.J., 2000. Economic and Financial Comparison of Organic and Conven- 13 (7), 532–546.
tional Citrus-growing Systems, Study Prepared for the Horticultural Products Rüdenauer, I., Gensch, C.O., Griebhammer, R., Bunke, D., 2005. Integrated environmental
Group, Tropical and Horticultural Products Service, Commodities and Trade Division. and economic assessment of product and processes. A method for eco-efficiency
FAO, Rome. analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (4), 105–116.
Khoshnevisan, B., Bolandnazar, E., Shamshirband, S., Shariati, H.M., Anuar, N.B., Kiah, Sanjuán, N., Ribal, J., Clemente, G., Fenollosa, M.L., 2011. Measuring and improving eco-ef-
M.L.M., 2015. Decreasing environmental impacts of cropping systems using lifecycle ficiency using data envelopment analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (4), 614–628.
assessment (LCA) and multi-objective genetic algorithm. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 67–77. Smyth, A., Dumanski, J., 1993. FESLM: An International Framework for Evaluating Sustain-
Kuosmanen, T., 2005. Measurement and analysis of eco-efficiency: an economist's per- able Land Management, World Soil Resources Report 73. Land and Water Develop-
spective. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (4), 15–18. ment Division. FAO, Rome.
Kuosmanen, T., Kortelainen, M., 2005. Measuring eco-efficiency of production with data Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., Hamilton, S.K., 2007. Ecosystem services and agri-
envelopment analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (4), 59–72. culture. Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefit. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2),
Lorenzo-Toja, Y., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Chenel, S., Marín-Navarro, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 245–252.
2015. Eco-efficiency analysis of Spanish WWTPs using the LCA + DEA method. Water Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, 2014. Ecoinvent 2.1. Switzerland. http://www.
Res. 68, 651–666. ecoinvent.org/database (accessed 25th of May 2014).
Lozano, S., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2009. The link between operational effi- Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., Macdonald, D.W., 2012. Does organic farming re-
ciency and environmental impacts. A joint application of life cycle assessment and duce environmental impacts – a meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ.
data envelopment analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 1744–1754. Manag. 112, 309–320.
Lozano, S., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Environmental impact efficiency in UH, 2013. Pesticide Footprint Database. University of Hertfordshire, UK. http://sitem.
mussel cultivation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12), 1269–1277. herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/index2.htm (Accessed 25th May 2014).
MARM-Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, 2010. Estadísticas 2010 de USEtox, 2013. The USEtox model. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Task Force on Toxic
agricultura ecológica (Madrid). Impacts. USEtox Team.
McBean, C., 2012. The pesticide manual: a world compendium. In: McBean, C. (Ed.), Brit- van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., García Cidad, V.,
ish Crop Protection Council. Surrey, UK. Hermy, M., Mathijs, E., Muys, B., Reijnders, J., Sauvenier, X., Valckx, J., Vanclooster,
Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Dalggard, T., Knudsen, M.T., Keyhani, A., Mousavi- M., van der Veken, B., Wauters, E., Peeters, A., 2007. SAFE – a hierarchical framework
Avval, S.H., Hermansen, J.E., 2013. Potential greenhouse gas emission reductions in for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 120
soybean farming: a combined use of life cycle assessment and data envelopment (2–4), 229242.
analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 54, 89–100. Van Passel, S., Meul, M., 2012. Multilevel and multi-user sustainability assessment of
Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Keyhani, A., Dalgaard, T., Knudsen, M.T., Nguyen, farming systems. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 32, 170–180.
T.L.T., Borek, R., Hermansen, J.E., 2015. Joint life cycle assessment and data envelop- Vázquez-Rowe, I., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Combined application of life
ment analysis for the benchmarking of environmental impacts in rice paddy produc- cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis as a methodological approach for
tion. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 521–532. the assessment of fisheries. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 272–283.
Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J., van Huylenbroek, G., 2009. A meta-analysis of the differences Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2012. Joint life
in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. Br. Food J. 111, cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for vinification
1098–1119. in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 27, 92–102.
Nemecek, T., Kägi, T., 2007. Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural pro- WBCSD, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2000,. Eco-Efficiency –
duction systems. Final Report ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agrosope Reckenholz-Tänikon Creating More Value with Less Impact. Geneve.
Research Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Düdendorf, Zhang, N., Choi, Y., 2014. A note on the evolution of directional distance function and its
Suiza. development in energy and environmental studies 1997–2013. Renew. Sust. Energ.
NPIC, 2013. OSU Extension Pesticide Properties Database. National Pesticide Information Rev. 33, 50–59.
Center, Oregon State University, Oregon (USA). http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/ Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystem services
ppdmove.htm (Accessed 18th October 2013). and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2), 253–260.
O'Donnell, C.J., Prasada, D.S., Battese, G.E., 2008. Metafrontier frameworks for the study of Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., Poh, K.L., 2008. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and
firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empir. Econ. 34, 231–255. environmental studies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 189, 1–18.
OECD, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1993n. OECD Core Set Zhu, Z., Wang, K., Zhang, B., 2014. Applying a network data envelopment analysis model
of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. A synthesis report by the to quantify the eco-efficiency of products: a case study of pesticides. J. Clean. Prod. 69,
Group on the State of the Environment, Environment Monograph 83. Paris. 67–73.
OECD, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1998n. Eco-efficiency.
Paris.

S-ar putea să vă placă și