Assessment of economic and ecological carrying capacity of agricultural crops in Nicaragua

Abstract The relationships between, and usefulness of, three different analysis methods: (1) economic cost and return estimation (CAR), (2) ecological footprint (EF) and (3) emergy analysis (EA) in assessing economic viability, ecological carrying capacity and sustainability in tropical crop production was the focus for this study. The analyses were conducted on six agricultural crop production systems in Nicaragua: common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L. Mill), cabbage (Brassica oleraceae L. var. capitata), maize (Zea mays L.), pineapple (Ananas comosus L. Merr.) and coffee (Coffea arabica L.). The economic indices studied were revenues and profitability. The ecological footprint indices were ecological footprint per hectare of crop (EFcrop), ecological footprint per 1000 USD revenues (EFrev) and ecological footprint per gigacalorie of food energy produced (EFGcal). The emergy analysis indices used were emergy-based profitability (EAprof) and emergy-based ecological footprint (EAEF). The study indicated that cabbage and tomato were the most profitable crops, both in economic and emergy terms, and that coffee was the least profitable crop to grow. On the other hand, beans, coffee and maize were most sustainable when sustainability was measured as ecological carrying capacity, assessed by EF or emergy-based EF, while cabbage and tomato were the least sustainable. Moreover, maize turned out to be the crop with the lowest area demand per production of gigacalorie. Profitability assessed in economic terms or in relation to emergy use (EAprof) or to ecological footprint showed similar patterns and gave the same rankings between the crops. However, profitability assessed by CAR was higher than when assessed by EAprof, due to the fact that no environmental appropriation is included in the CAR. Area appropriation assessed with emergy or with ordinary ecological footprint also resulted in mainly the same rankings between the crops, while the actual size of the areas was at most 10 times larger when assessed in emergy than with plain ecological footprint. Our results add to the body of knowledge on the poor coherence between economic profitability and ecological sustainability. However, we argue that these evaluations may be used as methods for quantitatively assessing different production systems, leading to indices weighting together economic and environmental aspects that may be used to make decisions.

[1]  Tim R. McClanahan,et al.  EMergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River dam proposals , 1996 .

[2]  Mark T. Brown,et al.  Improving agricultural sustainability: the case of Swedish greenhouse tomatoes , 1999 .

[3]  D. A. Arias,et al.  Tables de Composicion de Alimentos , 1987 .

[4]  J. Doorenbos,et al.  Yield response to water , 1979 .

[5]  Ian Moffatt,et al.  Ecological footprints and sustainable development , 2000 .

[6]  S. Shalhevet,et al.  Economic evaluation of insect-proof screens for preventing tomato yellow leaf curl virus of tomatoes in Israel , 2001 .

[7]  R. Casadesus-Masanell,et al.  World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) , 2007 .

[8]  Simone Bastianoni,et al.  EMERGY ANALYSIS OF ITALIAN AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM. THE ROLE OF ENERGY QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INPUTS , 1993 .

[9]  Sigrid Stagl,et al.  Ecological Economics: An Introduction , 2000 .

[10]  David O. Olson,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses , 2006 .

[11]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[12]  Rob Cramb,et al.  Erosion/productivity modelling of maize farming in the Philippine uplands: Part II: simulation of alternative farming methods , 1998 .

[13]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Introduction to the special issue on the dynamics and value of ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological perspectives , 2002 .

[14]  Mark T. Brown,et al.  Emergy Measures of Carrying Capacity to Evaluate Economic Investments , 2001 .

[15]  Freddy Alemán.  Common bean response to tillage intensity and weed control strategies. , 2001 .

[16]  R. L. Horst,et al.  Future directions in air quality research: economic issues. , 2003, Environment international.

[17]  Marina Lasagni,et al.  Trends in Ecological Physical Chemistry. , 1994 .

[18]  Ross Cullen,et al.  New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy , 1998 .

[19]  A. Lugo,et al.  Effects of Changes in Biodiversity on Ecosystem Function in Tropical Forests , 1996 .

[20]  Edward C. Lefroy,et al.  Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in southwestern Australia , 2003 .

[21]  H. Mooney,et al.  Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems , 1997, Renewable Energy.

[22]  D. Midmore,et al.  Erosion and Productivity of Vegetable Systems on Sloping Volcanic Ash–Derived Philippine Soils , 1999 .

[23]  R. Ayres,et al.  Strong versus weak sustainability: Economics, natural sciences, and consilience , 2001 .

[24]  Knut H. Alfsen,et al.  The cost of soil erosion in Nicaragua , 1996 .

[25]  Erwin H. Bulte,et al.  The ecological footprint: useful science or politics? , 2000 .

[26]  Gene Bazan.  Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth , 1997 .

[27]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  The Ecological Footprint: an Indicator of Progress Toward Regional Sustainability , 1998 .

[28]  Simone Bastianoni,et al.  Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability an emergy analysis of Italy , 1994 .

[29]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability , 2000 .

[30]  C. Richter,et al.  Nutrient losses from cropland in the Central Highlands of Kenya due to surface runoff and soil erosion , 1995 .

[31]  D. Tilley,et al.  Emergy Basis of Forest Systems , 1999 .

[32]  Brad R. Ewing,et al.  Living planet report 2008 , 2004 .

[33]  Torbjörn Rydberg,et al.  Comparison of horse and tractor traction using emergy analysis , 2002 .

[34]  N. Nakagoshi,et al.  An ecosystem service value assessment of land-use change on Chongming Island, China. , 2004 .

[35]  Howard T. Odum,et al.  Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making , 1995 .

[36]  Howard T. Odum,et al.  Energy, environment and public policy : a guide to the analysis of systems , 1988 .

[37]  I. Bräuer.  Money as an indicator: to make use of economic evaluation for biodiversity conservation , 2003 .

[38]  M. Cuadra.  Assessment of the Natural Resource Base of Nicaragua and Case Studies of its Use in Agricultural Production and Export , 2005 .

[39]  B. Bakshi,et al.  Promise and problems of emergy analysis , 2004 .

[40]  S. Ponte.  The 'Latte Revolution'? Regulation, Markets and Consumption in the Global Coffee Chain , 2002 .

[41]  D. Pimentel,et al.  Economic and Environmental Benefits of Biodiversity , 1997 .

[42]  Torbjörn Rydberg,et al.  Emergy evaluation on the production, processing and export of coffee in Nicaragua , 2006 .

[43]  B. Münier,et al.  Combined ecological and economic modelling in agricultural land use scenarios , 2004 .

[44]  Howard T. Odum,et al.  A Prosperous Way Down: Principles And Policies , 2001 .

[45]  M. Wackernagel,et al.  Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability , 1996 .