A longitudinal literature review of life cycle costing applied to urban agriculture

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this research is to carry out a literature review of the use of life cycle costing (LCC) in the urban agriculture (UA) sector by analysing its evolution over a 22-year period from its beginning in 1996 to July 2018. Methods A total of 442 references were obtained from two principal databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). After a long refining process, 20 (4.5%) references containing the keywords LCC and UA were selected for analysis. Then, we classified and organized the selected references in 4 groups. Qualitative methods were used for analysis, and results on general characteristics of the 20 references and by each group were elaborated. Lastly, we discussed and concluded the most significant findings. Limitations and future research were also included. Results and discussion Our major findings were as follows: (i) urban horticulture was the most studied urban agriculture practice among studies that used LCC for UA; (ii) LCC plays a secondary role in its integration with LCA; (iii) only 4 of the10 papers in group 1 used additional financial tools; (iv) very few (3) papers appropriately applied the four main LCC stages; and on the other side, essential costs like infrastructure, labour, maintenance, and end-of-life were frequently not included. Conclusions Since we found that life cycle assessment (LCA) was the predominant methodology, we suggest that future research apply both LCA and LCC analyses at the same level. The LCC analysis was quite incomplete in terms of the costs included in each LCC stage. We recommend that the costs at the initial or construction stage be considered a necessity in future studies in order to implement these new systems on a large scale. Due to the limited use of labour cost at the operation stage, we also suggest that labour be included as an essential part of the urban production process. Finally, for more complete LCC analysis for UA, we recommend (i) that all LCC stages be considered and (ii) that additional financial tools, such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period (PBP), be used to complement the LCC analysis.

Avenues for improving farming sustainability assessment with upgraded tools, sustainability framing and indicators. A review

“…There are still several limitations of social indicators in LCA, such as the absence of clear definitions and a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability within Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment frameworks (Subramanian et al 2018). Another major limitation when it comes to tools oriented towards the environment is the poor emphasis on labour, both considering the costs along the supply chain and in terms of workload (Pena and Rosa Rovira-Val 2020). Labour represents a good proxy of economic and social issues.…”

Life cycle cost analysis of agri-food products: A systematic review

“…Currently, there is no international standard available for the life cycle cost analysis of agricultural and food products. Recent reviews of life cycle costing of food waste management and life cycle costing in urban agriculture have found inconsistencies within the methodological aspects of LCC (De Menna et al, 2018;Peña and Rovira-Val, 2020). In conclusion, insights into the methodological framework for LCC in the agri-food sector are needed.…”

“…To our knowledge, such a systematic review of life cycle cost analyses in the agri-food sector does not exist, except for the aforementioned reviews on two specific agri-food domains, i.e. food waste (De Menna et al, 2018) and urban agriculture (Peña and Rovira-Val, 2020). This systematic review will further differ from existing reviews in the fact that it (1) uses a different methodological approach (systematic) and (2) includes all studies conducting a life cycle cost analysis of food or agricultural products instead of focusing on food waste or urban agriculture only.…”

The Role of Buildings in Rural Areas: Trends, Challenges, and Innovations for Sustainable Development

“…Within the research gaps, we found the frequency of the life cycle relatively low. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) are undoubtedly raising growing interest [89,90], but our results encourage additional research.…”