Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing for the Production of Hydrangeas in Antioquia—Colombia

Abstract

In the floriculture sector, it has been identified that the use of agrochemicals, fuels, and various raw materials has a significant impact on the environment, and, from an economic point of view, their use improves the quality of life of the people involved in the activity, and at the same time contributes to the development of the territories. Therefore, in order to address these issues, sustainability-oriented solutions have been proposed. This study focuses on the performance of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of hydrangea production, addressing its environmental and economic dimensions, using the conventional method according to ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. The functional unit was defined as one kilogram (1 kg) of hydrangea stems from a 36-week production cycle in three different crop sizes, as follows: small (0.45 ha), medium (1.20 ha), and large (2.99 ha). The boundaries of the gate-to-gate system were used, including the stages of growing and transporting of the flowers, to delivery to the marketer. The results showed significant environmental impacts in the areas of climate change, human toxicity, and acidification, resulting from phytosanitary management; use of fertilizers, fuel, and raw materials for infrastructure; and packaging of flowers for delivery to the marketer. In addition, from an economic point of view, it was shown that the most significant internal costs were associated with the cultivation phase, while the external costs were associated with CO₂ emissions. The return on investment was less than 0.15 years, with human productivity more than 73%, and infrastructure investment less than 16%. These results highlight the need to implement effective measures to mitigate negative impacts and promote more sustainable practices in floriculture to further strengthen the sector, as hydrangeas are an export product.

1. Introduction

The horticultural industry has experienced significant growth in recent decades, with an increase in demand for ornamental flowers. Colombia has more than 600 species of cut flowers and shrubs planted, mainly distributed in the department of Cundinamarca, with 66% of the total, followed by Antioquia with 33%, and the remaining 1% in the southwest of the country [1]. Colombian flowers are preferred worldwide for being among the most beautiful and of the highest quality; being the country where there are about 1600 varieties of flowers, it is also ranked as the second largest exporter in the world after Holland, with a share of 17%. The country exported about 2.52 million dollars and 317,000 tons in 2022, achieving a growth of 18.8% and 4.9% in value and tons, respectively, compared to 2021 [2].

The production of species in the country is led by the cultivation of roses with 33.5%, followed by hydrangeas with 20.5%, chrysanthemums with 12.0%, carnations with 11.6%, alstroemerias with 4.9%, and others with 17.5% [1]. Cut flowers represent an important economic sector worldwide, associated with various environmental and social impacts, including the generation of more than 200,000 direct and indirect formal jobs, with a high participation of women, who account for 60% of the jobs, mostly as heads of households [2]. Thus, in the sub-region of La Provincia de La Paz, in eastern Antioquia, hydrangea floriculture has positioned itself as an engine of economic and social development in the post-conflict period, with high added value in an area where family economies with agricultural traditions predominate [3]. However, economic activities that generate economic income for the country also generate some negative impacts on the environment that are not often considered and require prevention, mitigation, or recovery measures in the different stages of productive activities [4]. For this purpose, the application of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) emerges as a crucial tool to assess and mitigate the impacts associated with products and services throughout their entire life cycle, from raw material production to the end-of-life stage (including recycling, if applicable) [5], holistically integrating not only social, but also economic and environmental considerations.

LCA, from an environmental perspective, identifies the significant impacts of hydrangea crops, from land preparation to post-harvest and distribution. This approach helps us to understand the impact of intensive use of natural resources, such as water and agrochemicals, and the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, providing a basis for implementing more sustainable practices. A bibliometric study on sustainable horticulture highlights the importance of addressing the environmental dimension, although it points out that in many cases the economic and social dimensions are not equally integrated [6]. The Life Cycle Costing (LCC) tool focuses on the direct costs and benefits of economic activities, including the costs of pollution prevention, raw material costs, taxes, interest on capital, etc. It also addresses externalities, such as impacts on human welfare due to social impacts, biodiversity, or reduced crop yields due to pollution [7]. Therefore, Life Cycle Costing is a collection and evaluation related to a product along the whole process, from production, use, and maintenance, to disposal [8]. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to carry out an LCA and LCC of hydrangea agroindustrial companies to ensure their viability and competitiveness, as well as to identify opportunities to optimize processes and reduce costs in the long run, given that it is an export product that requires support to improve economic and environmental aspects.

Based on the above, how the application of LCAs in hydrangea crops in the province of La Paz is a key strategy to address the environmental and economic challenges of the sector was analyzed, aligning production with the principles of sustainability and social responsibility. Several LCA studies have been conducted on horticultural production, such as those reported by Sahle and Potting (2013), who focused on rose cultivation in Ethiopia [9]; Abeliotis et al. (2016), who conducted an LCA for carnations in Greece [10]; Moreno et al. (2019), who evaluated the cut flower supply chain [11]; and Gonzalez et al. (2024), who assessed the environmental impacts of hydrangea production [3], among others. In addition, as Gonzalez et al. (2024) [3] point out, limited research has concentrated on hydrangea analysis. In this study, the integration of environmental and economic analyses in the LCA provides a comprehensive view of the sustainability of this flower’s production, highlighting how environmental improvements can lead to economic benefits, such as lower operating costs and an increased market value for sustainable products. This complete strategy encourages not only natural resource conservation and environmental protection, but also economic sustainability for firms and the region.

2. Materials and Methods

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of hydrangea crops was performed using the conventional four-phase method, with reference to the criteria of ISO 14040 of 2020, and ISO 14044 of 2006 [12,13]. The four phases consist of the definition of the objective and scope, the inventory analysis, the impact assessment, and the interpretation of the results. Thus, for the LCA of this study, the same structure was used for the environmental and economic context.

2.1. Definition of Objectives and Scope

2.1.1. Description of the Case Study

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the Life Cycle Assessment and life cycle costs of hydrangea production for three crop sizes present in the province of La Paz. Hydrangea cultivation involves soil preparation, planting, and infrastructure preparation. The cultivation phase also includes planting, irrigation, fertilization, and chemical spraying. During the cultivation phase, stems that do not meet export quality standards, such as those that are thin, twisted, or have phytosanitary problems, and even stems without well-formed tips, are discarded. At this stage, stems that have flowered and meet export quality requirements are cut. After cutting, the flowers are checked for pathogens and diseases. The stems are then hydrated, and, depending on the type of flower, the hydrangeas are packed in cardboard or plastic boxes for transport to the trading company (Figure 1). Each stage is described in detail in Gonzalez et al. (2024) [3].

2.1.2. Functional Unit and System Boundary

The functional unit selected was one kilogram (1 kg) of hydrangea stems, equivalent to approximately 12 stems, grown in a 36-week production cycle in 3 different crop sizes, as follows: small with an area of 0.45 ha (crop 1), medium with an area of 1.20 ha (crop 2), and large with an area of 2.99 ha (crop 3), located in the province of La Paz, Antioquia, Colombia, packaged and transported for export. The study was conducted using a gate-to-gate approach (farm to transport), which included the activities prior to planting, the cultivation stage, harvest, post-harvest, transport to the distributor, and some end-of-cycle processes, including removal of waste stalks, washing and disinfection, and composting and mulching of plant waste (Figure 2) [3]. From a distribution perspective, hydrangea is a perishable product. Therefore, transportation over short distances is essential to maintain the quality and shelf life of the product. In addition, this activity is assumed by the growers, so it was included in the analysis.

The following assumptions were made in this work:

-

The hydrangea production cycle takes 36 weeks.

-

The energy used in the different stages of the hydrangea production process comes from a Colombian energy mix for the year 2021, which includes 81.82% hydroelectric, 11.1% natural gas, 5.4% coal, 1.07% oil, 0.44% solar, and 0.08% wind.

-

It is assumed that the crop has a useful life of 10 years; the materials for the infrastructure have a life of 10 years; wooden poles, tutoring net, and cardboard plastic box have a life of 5 years; and the bamboo poles, steel-based materials—wire, rods, tubing, and screws—and saran plastic have a life of 7 years.

-

It has been considered that one month is approximately 4.34 weeks.

-

Emissions of fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels to air and water were taken from the literature.

-

For liquid pesticides, the active ingredient was obtained from the Ecoinvent 3.8 database by combining it with a solvent and determining its concentration. If the active component could not be recognized, it was believed to be an herbicide, insecticide, or unidentified pesticide, and the concentration of the active ingredient listed in each of the reviewed technical datasheets had to be determined.

-

The salary costs were calculated using the value of the legal minimum established for Colombia in the year 2022 for workers, linked monthly, and the daily wages were calculated using the rate that the villagers have, which is approximately $13.09 USD, demonstrating that this value is consistent with that established by law.

-

The total income for the 36-week cycle includes income from the sale of flowers to marketers.

-

The income from hydrangeas was determined by considering only the selected species with an approximate value of $0.37 USD per flower.

2.2. Life Cycle Inventory and Date Source

The results of the environmental and economic LCAs are highly dependent on the accuracy and completeness of the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI).

Table 1. Inventory of the life cycle of the production crops of 1 kg of hydrangeas.

Stage	Input	Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3	Unit	Source	References
Soil preparation	Tractor fuel (diesel)	0.002	0.002	1.57 × 10−3	MJ	a, b, c	-
	Agricultural lime	0.014	0.002	0.012	kg	a, c	-
	NPK triple 15 (15-15-15)	-	0.006	-
	Organic fertilizer (poultry manure)	0.004	0.001	0.010	kg	a, c	-
Seeding	Clump	0.103	0.061	-	Unit	a	Considered neutral
	Cutting	0.018	0.061	0.121	Unit	a	Considered neutral
Infrastructure preparation	Saran plastic (HDPE)	0.015	0.012	0.016	kg	a, c	-
	Bamboo poles	0.116	0.093	0.042	kg	a, c	-
	Woodwind poles (pine)	1.69 × 10−5	1.36 × 10−5	1.35 × 10−5	m3	a, c	-
	Tutoring net (PP)	4.85 × 10−4	1.87 × 10−4	3.87 × 10−4	kg	a, c	-
	Polycarbonate sheet	-	-	0.005	kg
	Trap oil	0.001	2.09 × 10−4	2.13 × 10−5	kg	a, c	-
	PVC pipe	5.09 × 10−7	1.53 × 10−7	6.10 × 10−8	kg	c, d	[14]
	Greenhouse plastic (PE)	1.29 × 10−5	3.88 × 10−6	1.55 × 10−6	kg	c, d
	Steel-based materials: wire, rods, tubing, and screws	0.001	2.72 × 10−4	2.40 × 10−4	kg	a, c, d
	Super board (Fiber Cement)	0.005	0.004	0.001	kg	a, c	-
	Cement floor	0.014	0.011	0.008	kg	a, c	-
	Fiber cement roof	0.006	0.005	0.003	kg	a, c	-
Fertilization	NPK triple 15 (15-15-15)	0.176	0.141	0.137	kg	a, c, d	[15]
	NPK 10-20-20	-	0.188	0.246	kg	a, c, d	-
	Organic fertilizer (crop compost)	0.092	-	0.432	kg	a, b, c	[16]
	Vegetal waste mulching	2.841	2.039	2.039	kg	a	-
Stem selection	Disinfectants (sodium hypochlorite)	4.18 × 10−6	-	5.01 × 10−7	L	a, c	-
	Disinfectants yodosafer	-	3.13 × 10−7	-	-	-	-
	Water	0.004	6.26 × 10−4	5.01 × 10−4	kg	a, c	-
Phytosanitary management	Abamectin-based pesticide (Abafed)	0.005	-	-	L	a, c, d	[17]
	Fenazaquin-based pesticide (Magister)	0.004	-	-	L	a, c, d	[18]
	Sulfur-based pesticide (Polythion)	0.015	0.020	0.006	L	a, c, d	[19]
	Mancozeb-based pesticide (Dithane)	0.015	-	0.004	kg	a, c, d	[20]
	Abamectina-based pesticide (Candonga)	-	0.002	9.02 × 10−5	L	a, c, d	[21]
	Lamba-cyhalothina-based pesticide (Athrin)	-	0.020	-	L	a, c, d	[22]
	Imperius-based pesticide (Diafenthiuron)	-	0.001	9.02 × 10−5	L	a, c, d	[23]
	Difenoconcole-based pesticide (Divino)	-	0.004	-	L	a, c, d	[24]
	Clorotalonil-based pesticide (Centauro)	-	0.001	-	L	a, c, d	[25]
	Azufre-based pesticide (Elosal)	-	0.005	0.005	L	a, c, d	[26]
	Difeconazole-based pesticide (Score)	-	4.51 × 10−4	-	L	a, c, d	[27]
	Matribuzin-based pesticide (Abax)	-	-	0.001	L	a, c, d	[28]
	Difenoconazole-based pesticide (Kudo)	-	-	144	L	a, c, d	[29]
	Difenoconazole-based pesticide (Difecol)	-	-	2.71 × 10−4	kg	a, c, d	[30]
	Cobrethane-based pesticide (Mancozeb)	-	-	0.01	kg	a, c, d	[31]
	Acariboom-based pesticide (Etoxazole)	-	-	1.80 × 10−4	L	a, c, d	[32]
	Carbendazim	-	-	0.003	L	a, c, d	[33]
	Bufentrhin-based pesticide (Cayenne)	-	-	9.02 × 10−5	L	a, c, d	[34]
	Mancozeb-based pesticide (Manzate)	-	-	0.001	kg	a, c, d	[35]
	Chlorfenapyr-based pesticide (Mitipyr)	-	-	3.61 × 10−4	L	a, c, d	[36]
	Abamectina-based pesticide (Santimec)	-	-	9.02 × 10−5	L	a, c, d	[37]
	Difenoconazole-based pesticide (Spax)	-	-	0.001	L	a, c, d	[38]
	Chlorfenapyr-based pesticide (Sunfire)	-	-	0.001	L	a, c, d	[39]
	Abamectina-based pesticide (Vertimec)	-	-	4.51 × 10−4	L	a, c, d	[40]
	Rainwater	24.012	14.395	14.402	kg	a	Considered neutral
	Fuel for spraying (gasoline)	0.011	0.014	-	kg	a, c	-
	Fuel for transportation inputs (gasoline)	0.011	0.008	0.018	kg	a, c	-
	Engine oil	2.32 × 10−4	3.04 × 10−4	6.91 × 10−5	kg	a, c	-
	Electric energy	-	-	0.08	kWh	a, b, c	[41]
Stem cutting	Disinfectants (sodium hypochlorite)	3.46 × 10−5	-	4.16 × 10−6	L	a, c	-
	Disinfectants yodosafer	-	2.69 × 10−6	-	L	a, c	-
	Water	0.035	4.31 × 10−4	4.16 × 10−3	L	a, c	-
Monitoring and make-up	Electric energy	0.002	0.002	0.016	kWh	a, b, c	[41]
Hydration	Water	0.060	0.060	0.060	kg	a, c	-
	Hydrators (PP)	0.006	0.006	0.006	kg	a, c	-
	Rubber (natural rubber)	0.003	0.006	0.006	kg	a, c	-
	Caps (PP)	0.031	0.031	0.003	kg	a, c	-
Packaging	Plast carton box (PP)	0.001	2.55 × 10−4	1.02 × 10−4	kg	a, c	-
Post-harvest area cleaning	Water	0.035	0.010	0.004	kg	a, c	-
	Detergent soap	2.03 × 10−4	6.08 × 10−5	2.43 × 10−5	kg	a, c	-
Transport to the marketer	Vehicle fuel (gasoline)	0.002	0.001	0.005	kg	a, b, c	[42]
Remaining stem removal	Fuel for mower (gasoline)	0.002	0.003	3.23 × 10−3	kg	a, b, c	[43]
	Mower oil	9.58 × 10−5	0.001	5.08 × 10−4	kg	b, c
Composting	Vegetal waste	0.150	0.150	0.150	kg	a, c	-
Mulching of vegetal waste	Vegetal waste	2.841	2.039	2.039	kg	a	-

a: calculated from primary information; b: estimated from information provided by experts and/or secondary sources; c: upstream process taken from Ecoinvent 3.8; d: calculated from specifications or datasheets.

summarizes the LCI considered in this study. Foreground data related to the hydrangea production process were collected through field visits and interviews with growers, corresponding to the years 2021 and 2023. Where additional information was needed, technical datasheets for specific agrochemical products, such as pesticides and fertilizers, were reviewed to determine their active ingredients and product composition. In addition, an agronomist from the municipality’s mayor’s office provided support. The goals were to ensure a reliable and comprehensive data collection process, resulting in very accurate data.

Regarding the waste outputs of the system, agrochemical containers and plant waste generated in the different stages of the process were considered, similar to the study by Gonzalez et al. (2024) [3]. Direct emissions to air, water, and soil caused by the use of inputs such as fertilizers, agrochemicals, etc., and by the combustion of fuels in agricultural machinery were also determined. The following methodologies have been used: the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories [44,45], EMEP methodology and the air pollutant emission inventory of the European Environment Agency [46], and the SALCA methodology developed by Nemecek et al. (2019) [47]. The emission factors documented by the Colombian Mining and Energy Planning Unit [19,47], as well as certain emission factors included in the Ecoinvent 3.8 database, were used (Table S1).

2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The LCA in this study was performed by analyzing the intermediate level through the Umberto LCA software (version + 10.0.03), using the CML method developed in 2002 by Guinée et al. (2002) [48] and updated in 2016 [49]. The Umberto software was linked to the inventories of the Ecoinvent 3.8 database, which contains complete information on material and energy consumption. In particular, the CML method has been used in different agricultural production studies, such as those of Cellura et al. (2012) [50], Romero-Gámez et al. (2012) [51], and Martin-Gorriz et al. (2020) [52], and evaluates 11 intermediate impact categories such as the following: acidification, climate change, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity; abiotic depletion potential, including fossil fuels, eutrophication, and human toxicity; abiotic depletion potential, including metals and ozone depletion; and photochemical oxidant formation [3]. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed in this study to examine the variation in the LCA inventory results.

2.4. Assessment of Life Cycle Costs

The environmental and economic LCA studies shared the same system boundaries and functional unit. The economic LCA included the internal and external costs generated in the hydrangea production chain. In addition, some relevant indicators were associated to evaluate the economic performance of the crops. The internal costs are the conventional costs associated with hydrangea production, and the external costs are the potential costs, mainly referred to as direct and indirect emissions in the life cycle stages [53]. The economic LCA was calculated using Equation (1).

LCA-E = Internal costs + External costs

(1)

2.4.1. Internal Costs

The internal costs consisted of the following two types: initial capital investment and operating costs. The initial investment cost (IIC) included the purchase of equipment and infrastructure; the operating cost included the purchase cost, management cost (MC), manufacturing and transportation cost (C_MT), and taxes (C_T). In addition, purchasing costs included the cost of raw materials (C_RM) and the cost of utilities (C_U). Manufacturing costs included labor costs (C_L) and maintenance costs (C_m). Internal costs were determined using Equation (2) [53,54].

Internal cost = MC + C_MT + C_T + C_RM + C_U + C_m + C_L

(2)

C_d is the depreciation cost related to ICI. A straight-line method was used to calculate C_d, as shown in Equation (3) [53,54].

C_d = ICI ((1 – 5%))/15

(3)

In Equation (3), 5% is the salvage value index, and 15 years is the useful life of hydrangea cultivation. All costs were calculated from the data presented in

Table 2. Internal costs of crops of one kilogram of hydrangeas.

Step	Material/Activavity	Cost ($USD/kg)
		Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3
Prior activities	Tutoring net (PP)	0.004	0.003	0.117
	Saran plastic (HDPE)	0.022	0.017	0.033
	Seeding	0.055	0.014	-
	Infrastructure preparation	0.073	0.048	0.179
	Cement floor	0.003	0.003	0.001
	Super board (Fiber Cement)	0.002	0.002	0.001
	Polycarbonate sheet	-	0.008	-
	Greenhouse plastic (PE)	5.78 × 10−5	1.73 × 10−5	6.94 × 10−6
	Steel-based materials: wire, rods, tubing, and screws	0.017	0.009	0.010
	Soil preparation	0.355	0.008	0.017
	Organic fertilizer (poultry manure)	0.000	3.52 × 10−4	0.008
	Trap oil	0.002	0.001	2.13 × 10−4
	Fiber cement roof	0.003	0.002	3.31 × 10−4
	NPK triple 15 (15-15-15)	-	0.005	-
	Bamboo poles	0.015	0.008	0.001
	Organic fertilizer (poultry manure)	0.007	0.001	0.005
	Woodwind poles (pine)	0.004	0.003	0.007
	PVC pipe	1.60 × 10−4	4.80 × 10−5	1.92 × 10−5
	Mano de obra	0.058	0.040	0.040
	Initial Capital Investment (ICI)	0.099	0.082	0.101
Cultivation	Engine oil	0.017	0.001	2.20 × 10−4
	Fertilization	0.159	0.328	0.418
	Phytosanitary management	0.455	0.427	0.301
	Raleo	0.037	4.27 × 10−5	1.59 × 10−5
	Water	7.82 × 10−6	5.22 × 10−7	4.63 × 10−7
	NPK triple 15 (15-15-15)	0.159	0.127	0.124
	NPK 10-20-20	-	0.201	-
	Insecticides and pesticides	0.375	0.405	0.181
	Fuel	0.018	0.018	0.014
	Labor	0.058	0.040	0.040
Harvesting	Stem cutting	6.49 × 10−5	4.33 × 10−5	5.57 × 10−5
	Water	-	4.33 × 10−6	3.84 × 10−6
	Disinfectants yodosafer	-	3.90 × 10−5	-
	Disinfectants (sodium hypochlorite)	3.29 × 10−5	-	3.95 × 10−6
	Labor	0.058	0.040	0.040
Post-harvest	Electric energy	3.17 × 10−4	2.53 × 10−4	0.004
	Hidratacion	0.322	0.298	0.176
	Post-harvest area cleaning	4.04 × 10−4	1.20 × 10−4	4.85 × 10−5
	Plast carton box (PP)	0.006	0.003	0.001
	Water	8.76 × 10−5	5.88 × 10−5	5.96 × 10−5
	Monitoring and make-up	0.141	2.53 × 10−4	0.004
	Detergent soap	3.72 × 10−4	1.12 × 10−4	4.47 × 10−5
	Rubber (natural rubber)	0.018	0.018	0.025
	Hydrators (PP)	0.045	0.060	0.036
	Caps (PP)	0.117	0.117	0.114
	Labor	0.058	0.040	0.040
Transport	Vehicle fuel (gasoline)	0.002	0.001	0.004
	Mano de obra	0.058	0.040	0.040
End to life	Remaining stem removal	0.023	0.005	0.003
	Labor	0.058	0.040	0.040

, where the prices of raw materials, utilities, labor, maintenance, transportation, and taxes were provided by the growers during the interviews conducted for the development of this research. In the case of some fertilizers and agrochemicals, they were requested at distribution warehouses in the area where the crops are located.

2.4.2. External Costs

The external cost is the marginal cost of damage based on the willingness to avoid the damage caused by environmental emissions; therefore, Equation (4) was used to determine it [55].

$$\mathrm{External} \cos \mathrm{t}={\sum }_{k=1}^i{C}_k\times E_{k,lc}$$

(4)

where C_k is the coefficient of the external cost of emission k, including CO₂, CH₄, NOx, CO, PM, and SO_X, taken from Pa et al., (2013) [55]; E_k,lc is the life cycle emission quantity k, determined using Umberto software and linked to the inventories in the Ecoinvent 3.8 database. The emissions and coefficients are detailed in

Table 3. Life cycle emissions and external cost coefficients.

Pollutant	Emission Production (kg)			Coefficient ($USD/kg) [52]
	Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3
CO2	0.961	1.581	2.019	$0.03
CH4	1.17 × 10−5	1.19 × 10−5	1.15 × 10−5	$0.23
NOx	7.50 × 10−4	0.001	0.001	$5.09
CO	4.55 × 10−4	4.66 × 10−4	4.51 × 10−4	$0.66
PM	4.60 × 10−5	4.71 × 10−5	4.55 × 10−5	$11.53
SOX	3.86 × 10−5	3.95 × 10−5	3.83 × 10−5	$3.90

.

2.4.3. Economic Indicators

With the information collected in Table 2, economic indicators were defined to evaluate the current state of hydrangea cultivation, using the equations presented in

Table 4. Economic indicators for hydrangea cultivation under current operating parameters [56].

Indicator	Quantification	Equation
Payback period (PP)	Quantitative	$\frac{Total investment}{Income or savings}$
% Local suppliers	Quantitative	$\frac{number of local suppliers}{Number of suppliersedores}\times 100$
Dependence on imports and contribution to exports	Quantitative	% of inputs obtained through imports
Financial profitability	Quantitative	$\frac{Revenue - Production cost}{Revenue}\times 100$
Total productivity	Quantitative	$\frac{Selling price - production cost}{Production cost}\times 100$
Human productivity	Quantitative	$\frac{Selling price - production cost}{Labor cost}$
Infrastructure investment	Quantitative	$\frac{Infrastructure investment}{Total investment}\times 100$

. It is important to keep in mind that there are different types of indicators, such as profitability, productivity, investments, and suppliers, among others [56]. Profitability is one of the most widely used economic indicators in the literature. This type of indicator has the ability to consider the impact of long-term investments such as infrastructure and machinery, among others. In addition, indicators that can provide information on the profitability of such investments can be very useful in decision-making []; two indicators of capital and labor productivity were identified. Capital productivity is an important factor in economic performance at different levels, and is influenced by factors such as technological change and maintenance. The relationship between labor productivity and economic performance is also highly reliable and depends on factors such as employee satisfaction, autonomy, and investment in technological growth and knowledge. Labor productivity has been used by other authors for life cycle analysis studies such as in [56,57].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Environmental Life Cycle Analysis

The results of the LCA for each of the three crops are shown in

Table 5. Environmental impacts for each of the hydrangea crops analyzed.

Impacts	Units	Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3
Acidification	kg SO2 eq	0.012	0.012	0.233
Climate change	kg CO2 eq	0.961	1.581	2.019
Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity	kg 1,4-DB eq	1.207	1.321	4.748
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity	kg 1,4-DB eq	803.897	1453.849	1795.372
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	kg 1,4-DB eq	0.572	0.570	0.759
Abiotic depletion: fossil fuels	MJ	10.668	16.575	20.038
Eutrophication	kg PO42− eq	0.008	0.010	0.064
Human toxicity	kg 1,4-DB eq	3.036	3.473	3.871
Abiotic depletion potential: metals	kg Sb eq	1.17 × 10−5	2.59 × 10−5	3.34 × 10−5
Ozone depletion	kg CFC-11 eq	7.75 × 10−8	1.23 × 10−7	1.66 × 10−7
Photochemical oxidant formation	kg C2H2 eq	2.38 × 10−4	2.80 × 10−4	3.61 × 10−4

. For example, there are significant differences in the climate change category, which measure Total investments greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO₂, N₂O, and CH₄. These differences are largely due to the soil conditions in which the crop is grown, since, depending on its characteristics and physicochemical properties, it requires a certain amount of fertilizer and agrochemicals to maintain the flowers during the useful life of the crop, thus compensating for the need for nutrients and avoiding the spread of pests and diseases.

Fertilization is one of the critical processes in the generation of environmental impacts due to the use of nitrogen-, phosphorus-, and potassium-based compounds; in the case of crop 1, only NPK triple 15 is used, while crops 2 and 3 use NPK triple 15 and 10-20-20, which, during the application process, have the potential to generate some nitrogen compounds that are not absorbed by plants and, therefore, can reach surface waters through run-off and leaching, causing pollution and eutrophication of water resources near the crop [3,58,59]. Eutrophication occurs when bodies of water become excessively enriched with nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, triggering overgrowth of plants and depleting oxygen levels, thereby harming aquatic ecosystems. In addition, the production process and transport of synthetic fertilizers (NPK triple 15 and 10-20-20) requires energy and fossil fuel consumption, which is a major contributor to the effects of climate change and abiotic depletion of fossil resources [3]; the latter refers to the depletion of non-living resources, such as fossil fuels, through the processes of extraction and consumption. On the other hand, phytosanitary management is another process that has a high contribution to the generation of environmental impacts, as the use of agrochemicals is considered the most direct threat to humans and the environment [3,60,61].

The impact of pesticides is mainly due to their active ingredients, which are derived from mineral sources and thus contribute to abiotic depletion. In addition, when pesticides are applied to crop soils, heavy metals and toxic active ingredients can reach water sources through run-off and leaching, causing long-term harm to aquatic organisms [3].

Upstream production processes use acidifying substances such as ammonia, carbon sulfide, diamines, nitrates, sulfates, etc., and emissions of toxic compounds such as ammonium, ethylenediamine, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, carbon sulfide, chlorides, heavy metals, etc., are present. The use of fossil fuels is required for the production and transportation processes of active ingredients, solvents, and pesticides. This is reflected in crops 2 and 3, which consume a greater variety of agrochemicals than crop 1 (Figure 3).

Other aspects that can affect the results are the transportation of raw materials and finished products, since the distance between the crop and the distribution and marketing companies can vary, which is reflected in the fuel consumption. In addition, the way in which the agrochemical application process is carried out also influences the results obtained, since in crops 1 and 2, it is conducted with fuel-powered equipment, while in crop 3, the equipment used runs on electric power.

The covering of plant residues on the soil of the crop is another process that contributes significantly to the environmental impact, which is more pronounced for crop 1 in terms of human toxicity, which measures the toxic effects of chemicals on human health, and climate change impacts, since for every kilogram of flowers exported, 2.84 kg are generated, while for crops 2 and 3, 2.03 kg are generated. Most of the plant residues from the crops are disposed of on the soil to promote in situ decomposition and nutrient delivery. This process has some benefits in terms of soil physic-chemical properties and nutrient levels, but if it is not controlled, it can have negative effects, such as excess moisture and an increase in pests and diseases. In addition, in many cases the residues left on the crop are not completely degraded before the next cycle begins, which can affect plant growth. Similar to fertilizers, nitrogen in crop residues increases the availability of nitrogen in the soil, resulting in emissions of NH₄⁺ and NO₃⁻, which can reach surface and groundwater, and air emissions of N₂O, NO_X and NH₃ [3,62].

Another important process in the generation of environmental impacts is the phytosanitary management with chemical pesticides, as some of them have been shown to have long-term adverse effects on the environment and human health [61,63]. This is reflected in the human toxicity results for the crop stage (Figure 3), where crops 2 and 3 have values higher than 1.5 kg 1,4-DB eq/kg flower due to the number of agrochemicals used in the phytosanitary management stage, while crop 1 is less than 0.5 kg 1,4-DB eq/kg flower. The potential impact of pesticides is mainly due to the active ingredients, which come from mineral sources, especially metals such as manganese, zinc, and aluminum, so their use contributes to abiotic depletion. Some of the active ingredients of pesticides are halogenated substances (with chlorine, fluorine, or bromine), which deplete the ozone layer. Furthermore, when pesticides are applied to crop soil, heavy metals and toxic active ingredients can reach water sources through run-off and leaching, causing long-term damage to aquatic organisms [64,65].

To a lesser extent, other stages that contribute to environmental impacts include the use of polymeric materials, such as polypropylene from hydrators used in flower hydration, polyethylene from saran, and tutoring mesh used in infrastructure and bamboo poles. The upstream processes of these materials contribute, on the one hand, to climate change due to the use of energy and fossil fuels in the production processes, and also to the depletion of abiotic resources and ecotoxicity, since, in some cases, the processes require the use of ecotoxic chemicals.

3.2. Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was performed for the three crops, simulating scenarios specifically related to the contribution to climate change (Figure 4). In this case, the effect of changing the fuel used to operate the sprayer was evaluated, since in one of the crops the equipment is powered by electricity (crop 3) and by gasoline in the other two (crops 1 and 2). Then, a comparison was made between all of the crops operating with energy and with fuel, since they are two important inputs that contribute to carbon dioxide emissions, and according to the results, if good use is made of both, significant reductions can be generated, which contributes to reducing the environmental footprint. Additionally, the use of NPK 10-20-20 and organic fertilizer in the fertilization stage is included for the three crops. Sensitivity analysis can be used in many areas of business decision-making at different levels [66].

The results obtained for scenario 1 are as follows: Fuel consumption vs. electric energy consumption are shown in Figure 4a, where it is evident that the transition from fuel consumption to the use of electric energy for pesticide spraying results in a significant reduction of the carbon footprint for crops 1 and 2, with a relative decrease of 2.4% in both cases, going from generating 0.961 kg CO₂ eq for crop 1 when consuming fuels derived from fossil sources, to generating 0.938 kg CO₂ eq when consuming electric energy. Similarly, for crop 2, it went from generating 1.581 to 1.543 kg CO₂ eq when replacing fuel consumption with electric power. This finding suggests that the use of electric energy can be an effective strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the floricultural activity.

For crop 3, although the relative reduction in its carbon footprint is lower (0.9%), there is still a reduction if electricity is chosen. However, the viability of this option may depend on additional considerations, such as operating costs and resource availability.

The results obtained for scenario 2 are as follows: Fertilizer variation (Figure 4b) shows a significant increase in the carbon footprint when using the combination of NPK triple 15 and NPK 10-20-20, compared to the exclusive use of NPK triple 15 in all crops. The increase in the carbon footprint when using the combination of NPK triple 15 and NPK 10-20-20 compared to NPK triple 15 alone is mainly due to the chemical composition of the additional fertilizers. NPK 10-20-20 contains a higher proportion of phosphorus and potassium relative to nitrogen, which could require more energy to produce and transport. In addition, the production process of the different types of fertilizers may result in the emission of additional greenhouse gases, contributing to the observed carbon footprint.

3.3. Economic Life Cycle Analysis

3.3.1. Analysis of Internal Costs

According to the proposed methodology, the average operating costs for each crop are shown in

Table 6. Results of internal costs for each stage of the life cycle.

Etapa/Cost	Cost ($USD/kg of Flower)
	Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3
Prior activities	0.720	0.256	0.521
Cultivation	1.275	1.547	1.079
Harvest	0.058	0.041	0.041
Post-harvest	0.709	0.538	0.401
Transport	0.060	0.042	0.045
End of cycle	0.081	0.045	0.043
Total	2.903	2.468	3.128
Cd	0.010	0.010	0.010
Internal Cost	5.816	4.947	5.268

. The results obtained show different patterns in the distribution of costs per production stage for 1 kg of hydrangea. While crop 2 and crop 3 show a higher proportion of costs associated with the cultivation stage, crop 1 shows a higher contribution to the preliminary activities and cultivation stages. The cultivation stage is where the highest proportion of costs are concentrated for the three crops, largely due to the investment in fertilizers and pesticides needed to deliver high quality flowers in conditions suitable for export.

Figure 5 shows the life cycle cost results for the three study crops, where crop 1 stands out for its lower total cost per cycle compared to the other crops. The cultivation phase (43.9%) and the preceding activities (24.8%) contribute significantly to the total costs, followed by the post-harvest phase (24.4%), where labor and the purchase of inputs also have an influence, and finally, the end-of-life cycle (2.8%), transport (2.1%), and harvesting (2.0%).

For crops 2 and 3, in both cases, the most relevant costs were related to the cultivation phase (62.7% and 50.7%, respectively), due to the purchase of significant quantities of inputs, such as fertilizers, agrochemicals, fuel consumption, energy, etc., which can be influenced by the extension of the cultivated area in comparison with crop 1. The post-harvest and pre-harvest phases were less important (their share did not exceed 25% for post-harvest and prior-harvest). These results obtained for the three crops are similar to those reported by Holka and Biénkowki (2020) [67], and Lokeh et al. (2019) [68], who, in their studies of maize and wheat straw production, respectively, mentioned that the processes of fertilization, use of agrochemicals, soil cultivation, and planting are the phases with a significant participation in life cycle costs, followed by the harvesting and plant protection phases.

3.3.2. External Costs

Table 7. External costs of producing one kilogram of hydrangeas.

Pollutant	Cost ($USD/kg)
	Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3
CO2	0.029	0.047	0.0629
CH4	2.69 × 10−6	2.74 × 10−6	2.65 × 10−6
NOx	0.004	0.001	0.005
CO	3 × 10−4	0.001	2.98 × 10−4
PM	0.001	0.001	0.001
SOX	1.51 × 10−4	0.001	1.49 × 10−4
Total	0.034	0.051	0.067

shows the external costs of hydrangea production, obtaining values of $0.0347 USD/kg of flower, $0.0493 USD/kg of flower, and $0.0690 USD/kg of flower, which are mainly attributed to CO₂ and NOx emissions in the different stages of the crop, especially in the cultivation phase and end-of-life cycle. In addition, it was evident that crop 1 has lower externality costs, due to the generation of lower emissions in the different stages of the process. These results were similar to those reported by Tamburini et al. (2015) [69].

3.3.3. Economic Indicators

Table 8. Economic indicators for hydrangea cultivation under current operating parameters.

Name of Indicator/Criteria	Crop 1	Crop 2	Crop 3
Recovery period	0.15 years	0.10 years	0.14 years
% local suppliers	56%	56%	56%
Dependence on imports and contribution to exports	44%	44%	44%
Financial profitability	22%	35%	20%
Total productivity	28%	54%	25%
Human productivity	97%	84%	73%
Infrastructure investment	16%	8%	15%

shows the economic indicators consolidated to compare the behavior of the three crops with different production areas, where it is evident that they have similar trends in some indicators, and in others depend largely on the behavior and distribution of resources in the different stages of the hydrangea production process.

The economic payback period is a critical indicator for evaluating business performance, and in this case it was 0.15, 0.10, and 0.14 years for small, medium, and large crops, respectively, indicating a short payback period. This result is very positive, as it suggests that the crop can quickly recoup any investment made, generating revenues that exceed costs in a relatively short period of time. Moreover, this indicator is fundamental, not only for assessing short-term profitability, but also for supporting the sustainability of the crop over time. In this sense, a short payback period allows producers to reinvest more quickly in technological improvements, sustainable farming practices, and production expansion. It also allows greater adaptability to changing market and climatic conditions, contributing to the resilience of the business in the face of potential adversity. The fact that the recovery period is so short, according to Dincer and Abu-Rayash (2020), reinforces the idea that the crop is not only economically efficient, but also has a significant capacity to adapt to market dynamics, which is essential for long-term sustainability in the agricultural context [70].

The percentage of local suppliers can be an indicator of a more resilient and sustainable economy, as it promotes job creation and local development; in the case of the crop, this indicator reaches 56%. This value indicates strong supply chain integration at the regional level, which not only benefits local producers, but also contributes to community empowerment. In addition, by stimulating local job creation, direct economic benefits are generated for the local population, improving their quality of life and reducing their dependence on external sources of income.

On the other hand, there is a 44% dependence on imports, which at times can lead to vulnerability to global events, such as international economic crises, for example, the war in Ukraine, or problems in supply routes. Therefore, diversifying import sources and promoting domestic production can be a strategy to mitigate the risks associated with excessive dependence on international trade. The aforementioned 44% dependence highlights the importance of evaluating and adjusting commercial strategies to minimize exposure to possible disruptions in global supply, thus ensuring stability and continuity of operations. In this context, diversifying suppliers and strengthening local production emerge as strategic measures to maintain resilience and long-term economic sustainability [71].

In the case of financial profitability, it is key to evaluate the efficiency and financial health of crops and the economy in general. Achieving a profitability of 22, 35, and 20% for the small, medium, and large producers, respectively, means that the income generated exceeds the costs associated with agricultural production. This positive indicator suggests efficient management of resources, including soil preparation, labor, and the few technological resources available within the crop, as well as an effective marketing strategy. This profitability also indicates a sound financial position for farmers, and contributes to the economic strengthening of the agricultural sector. This financial surplus can be reinvested in technological improvements, sustainable agricultural practices, or local infrastructure development, creating a long-term positive impact on the local economy.

4. Conclusions

The application of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in hydrangea production is of great importance, as it allows for the identification and effective addressing of the environ-mental and economic impacts that arise throughout the entire production chain. The comparison among the three crops revealed that the results of the impact categories are strongly influenced by the size of each crop. For instance, in the human toxicity category, the cultivation stage has a greater influence on crops 2 and 3, while the end-of-life stage is decisive for crop 1. Regarding acidification, climate change, and ozone layer depletion, it is observed that the cultivation stage exerts the greatest environmental impact for these three impact categories.

Therefore, this study not only enables a meticulous assessment of current cultivation practices concerning the environment, but also highlights specific areas for the implementation of improvement actions aimed at reducing environmental impacts. To achieve this goal, it is imperative to adopt cleaner production strategies, promote the circular economy, and implement good agricultural practices. These measures will not only contribute to promoting sustainability in hydrangea production, but will also have a positive impact on agriculture overall.

However, from an economic point of view, the cultivation stage was found to require the greatest investment, due to the need for more input management. Furthermore, the economic evaluation revealed that, from the perspective of external costs, which are directly related to externalities, the highest costs are related to CO₂ emissions. As mentioned above, from an environmental standpoint, it is imperative to take measures to reduce environmental impacts, which will also contribute significantly to these costs. Finally, the economic indicators analyzed for hydrangea cultivation show that the industry is operationally efficient and sustainable. This is reflected in the combination of a short economic recovery period (0.15, 0.10, and 0.14 years), and a profitability of 22%, 35%, and 20% for crops 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Consequently, the capacity to quickly recoup investments implies prudent financial management, and the generation of surpluses that can be reinvested in technological improvements and long-term sustainability.

These results suggest that it is important for producers to establish solid and lasting relationships with suppliers to provide stability in the supply of essential inputs and favorable commercial conditions. Negotiating long-term contracts with suppliers of fertilizers, substrates, and other inputs can help ensure stable prices and priority access to quality products throughout the growing season. It is recommended that producers seek to participate in horticultural trade fairs, exhibitions, and events as an alternative means of establishing contacts with potential customers, promoting products, and keeping abreast of market trends and developments. Furthermore, it is advised that customer relationship management systems be implemented to collect and manage customer data, purchasing preferences, order history, and communications.