Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing for the Production of Hydrangeas in Antioquia—Colombia
, Ana Patricia Bello 1, Nicolas Fernando Molina 2, Jaime Leòn Botero 3 and Mariluz Betancur 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPEER REVIEW REPORT
Overview and general recommendation:
The article investigates the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Life Cycle Costing (E-LCC) of the Hydrangea flowers production in Colombia. This paper could be interesting for publishing because it adds to the knowledge base in terms of providing a case study related to the flowers and to the application of both an LCA and an E-LCC.
My advice is to do some major adjustments before publishing. The main problem of the present paper is related to the low scientific replicability due to the lack of proper definition of the assumptions of the Inventories used and on the allocations made. In general the problem related to the insufficient explanation of the assumptions of the Inventories adopted is also present for what concerns the economic data. In addition another problem related to the quality of the study is the lack of any innovative approach or technique adopted for the evaluation of the LCA and of the LCC. Other problems related to the low quality of the study are; the fact that it is not present any assessment of the uncertainty of the data used and of the resulting impacts obtained and that is not present a proper Discussion of the Results obtained with what is already present in the Literature.
Major comments
Aim of the study: The goal of the study, that is the assessment of the Life Cycle environmental and economic impacts of the production and marketing of hydrangea flowers is not properly accomplished, that is due mainly to the reduced replicability of the results obtained in the study. My advice to the editorial board and to the authors is to do a major revision of the paper to enhance its quality before publishing.
Title: the title seems to reflect the content developed in the paper but I advise to change the term defined as “Economic life cycle assessment” with the term “Life Cycle Costing” because in the Literature it is more widely used.
Abstract & Keywords: In the abstract it is highlighted the purpose of the study and Results are generically presented. I suggest to revise the initial phrase (lines 13-14) because it is too vague and reports an expression that is not correct (i.e. “generator of negative environmental impacts”). I also advise to change the keywords “environmental” and “economy” with more specific ones.
Introduction: The introduction presents an overview related to the horticultural sector in Colombia and specifically linked to the Hydrangea. Economic benefits due to the horticultural sector are presented and environmental impacts are cited. It is not cited any LCA study conducted on the flower sector so my advice is to cite these studies because it is mentioned (lines 95-96) “ Given that several LCA studies have been conducted in horticultural production, but few have focused on the specific analysis of hydrangeas, the integration…”. Also instead of generally explaining what an LCA and an LCC consist of (lines 72-91) I would advise to explain best which is the gap that this study aims to fill through the conducted analysis. Lastly I advise to explain best what is reported in lines 78-81 specifically where it is mentioned that LCA and LCC are “integrated” in the study. Lines 85-87 the phrase is repeated with that reported above.
Materials and methods: The section is divided in paragraphs explaining the methodology of the LCA, LCC and of the economic indicators adopted for the present study.
Line 106: ISO 14040:2006 and not 2007 please correct the year (also on the References). The last amendment was made in 2020 so the last version would be ISO 14040:2006/Amd 1:2020.
Paragraph 2.1.1. It is not properly defined the goal of the study. This is a fundamental step in LCA studies so please explain it better.
Paragraph 2.1.2. Figure 2 quality is very low and it is not possible to understand correctly what is reported. Please revise the Figure in a way that the reader can understand what is included in each phase studied.
Line 148: correct the definition door-to-door with “cradle-to-gate” or “gate-to-gate”, due to the fact part of the distribution (until to the trader) is considered in the study.
Paragraph 2.2. For what concerns “Life Cycle Inventory and data source” in Table 1 are reported the values used for each operation considered. The main problem with the values reported is that for a replicability purpose I advise to add the hypotheses considered for the allocation of the values to the different inputs considered in the Inventory, otherwise it is not easy to reproduce the results obtained. It is also not clear to understand which is the meaning of adding the references to the values considered in the Inventories. Is it because the adopted values are taken from the references also (instead of just the “source” a, b or c)? Please explain also why for a single value the sources cited are different (i.e. a, b, c or d). Is it because the value is an average from primary and secondary sources?
Lines 176-178: Another important aspect is that no data is reported on the emission values considered for the different operations to the various environmental compartments. I advise to add the values considered because these take part in the LCI and could be influential to the environmental impacts calculated.
Paragraph 2.4.1: In Table 2 explain better the contribution of the operations considered in the Management Cost value and also for the other costs (i.e. CMT, CT…) because it is not easy to grasp for the reader. A split of the values in Table 2 could be functional to better understand the values of the Economic Indicators.
Paragraph 2.4.2: Line 243: if the coefficient of the external cost of emission k, values reported are referred just to the paper [51] please change “…taken form the Literature” with “…taken from Pa et al., (2013)”.
Results and Discussion:
Paragraph 3.1: I advise in general to be more specific in the definition of impact categories affected by the agricultural operation assessed and not to insert generic considerations as for example for the phytosanitary management (lines 300-309).
Line 336-337: “since for every kilogram of flowers, 2841 kg are generated, while for crops 2 and 3, 2039 kg are generated”. Check the values considered (i.e. 2841 and 2039) because they seem too high for 1 kg of flowers produced.
Paragraph 3.2: it is not clearly reported in which way the amount of fuel consumption used varies in the correspondent electrical energy use during the sensitivity. The phrase reported in lines 373-374 can be cancelled because it doesn’t add anything in terms of “findings” to the conducted study.
Paragraph 3.3: In Table 7 the cost conversion factor according to what is reported in the paper 51 is retrieved from the IMPACT2002+ method. Would be possible to consider cost coefficients according to a method related to the CML impact? So that it would correspond to the method adopted for the evaluation of the environmental impacts. In Table 7 the results of the external costs are just a little different from the multiplication of the values reported in Tabel 3, is it ok?
Paragraph 3.3.3: to better understand the values of the “productivity” and of the “Infrastructure investment” reported in Table 8 it would help to insert in the paper the values of the “selling prices”.
Lines 451:492: what is reported is a general comment related to the Economic Indicators that doesn't add anything to the Literature knowledge. Please revise and add a Discussion of what is already done in the Literature for similar crops to implement the quality of the Economic Indicators evaluation.
Conclusions : This section needs some adjustments. Lines 501-503: I suggest to rephrase “…allows a careful evaluation of current crop practices…” because it is not clear to what kind of evaluation is referred (economic, environmental…) please specify.
Author Contribution: it is included and properly reported.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
The point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work presents a interesting subject; however it needs some ajustments before been published, main coments are:
It is considered convenient to provide more details about the software used in the LCA; some features are mentioned, however the information that is input into the software for impact assessment is not presented. Please add this information.
It is mentioned that three crop sizes were studied; however, there is no information identifying the period in which the data were obtained; all the data was collected the same year?, just one cycle per crop was studied? The imputs mentioned in Table 1 were the same for all the crop sizes? Any difference between them?
The sensitivity analysis considers scenario simulations; could you provide more information about it? How did you determine which inputs contributed the most to CO2 emissions?
It was not possible to assess the usefulness of Figure 2; the resolution was inadequate, it is suggested to modify them. It is also important to modify Figures 3, 4, and Tables2 and 6 in order to have them complete on the same page.
Some paragraphs in the results and discussion section require a reference; for example: page 10 lines 293-299, lines 303-309, please check all the section.
Author Response
The point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
