R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Spatio-Temporal Differentiation of Life

Cycle Assessment Results for Average
Perennial Crop Farm
A Case Study of Peruvian Cocoa Progression and
Deforestation Issues
Giancarlo Raschio,1 Sergiy Smetana ,1 Christian Contreras,2 Volker Heinz,1
and Alexander Mathys3
1
German Institute of Food Technologies, Quakenbrück, Germany
2
The Nature Conservancy, Lima, Peru
3
Laboratory of Sustainable Food Processing, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Keywords:
geo-spatial differentiation in LCA
industrial ecology
land-use change
life cycle assessment
perennial crops impact assessment
relative risk of deforestation
Supporting information is linked
to this article on the JIE website
Summary
The application of spatially and temporally explicit information to increase result precision is
gaining momentum in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. It is vital for the assessment of
environmental impact of perennial crops with non-productive years, grown in combination
with shade crops. Available studies rely on differentiated life cycle inventory data for the
inputs in LCA or application of adapted impact assessment methodologies. This study
uses the identification of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) hotspots (statistically significant
clusters of farms with either high or low GHG emission values) estimated from average
LCA results and assesses a relative deforestation risk in such hotspots. A total of 1892 farms
in the Tocache province of San Martin region of Peru were evaluated between the year
2008 and 2010. Combination of average LCA results with farm size, age and deforestation
progression allowed for the identification of areas and farms with a high relative risk of
environmental impacts and potential deforestation. It was estimated that farms belonging
to high-GHG emission hotspots were twice more likely to expand their agricultural frontier
and cause deforestation than farms in low-GHG emission hotspots. Combining LCA with
geo-information systems and geostatistics is a viable path to explore the differentiation of
assessment results, which might lead to faster, more accurate, and resource-efficient ways
to tackle environmental impacts while also accounting for important environmental impacts
such as deforestation. Further research on the application of suggested approaches with
other perennial crops and other geographical areas is needed.

Introduction common principles of agricultural activities, we can observe a

wide range of real impacts on the environment caused by the di-
Farming is a major environmentally impacting stage of food
versity of the spatial, cultural, and temporal conditions affecting
production (Bessou et al. 2013; Foley et al. 2011). Despite
the agricultural practices (Cerutti et al. 2011, 2013; Bessou et al.

Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflict to declare.

Address correspondence to: Sergiy Smetana, German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL e.V.), Prof.-von-Klitzing-Straße 7, D-49610, Quakenbrück, Germany.
Email: S.Smetana@dil-ev.de

© 2017 by Yale University

DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12692 Editor managing review: Annie Levasseur

Volume 22, Number 6

1378 Journal of Industrial Ecology www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie


2013). Consideration of such variations is becoming mandatory
to increase the precision and avoid uncertainties and mistakes
in environmental assessment. It is especially important for the
results for public disclosure when false conclusions might lead
to increased impact actions of a large scale (Gavankar et al.
2015; Herrmann et al. 2014). Spatially and temporally variable
results of environmental impact during cocoa farming are of a
special interest for policy makers, traders, and farm associations
as cocoa production is experiencing a shortage crisis to supply
global demand. They can use the data for the differentiated sup-
port of more sustainable farming activities on the one hand and
identification of environmental “hotspot” areas, which require
additional attention for the reduction of negative impact, on
the other.
Perennial crops farming is especially sensitive to the spatio-
temporal differentiation due to the different stages of perennial
crops development, farm management, farm size, and, in many
cases, clumped and uneven distribution (Mouron et al. 2006;
Milà i Canals et al. 2006; Coltro et al. 2006; Cerutti et al.
2011; Bessou et al. 2013). Such spatio-temporal categorization
creates a complex system of perennial crops production, which
requires the adaptation of usual methods of life cycle assess-
ment (LCA) for the differentiation of impact assessment results
(Basset-Mens et al. 2016; Cerutti et al. 2013). Research litera-
ture considers a few potential solutions. The first solution aims
toward the differentiation of input parameters in LCA through
introduction of localized spatio-temporal life cycle inventory
(Maier et al. 2017; Ciroth et al. 2002; Finnveden and Nilsson
2005). Another way to deal with the spatial differences is the
introduction of special characterization factors for the assess-
ment methodologies of LCA (Yang 2016; Mutel and Hellweg
2009; Mutel et al. 2012; Nitschelm et al. 2016).
The third solution should be the differentiation of the av-
eraged LCA results according to the spatio-temporal charac-
teristics of the research area. The spatial differentiations then
could include the area (size) of the farms, their shape, and
their position according to the other farms, roads, or sensitive
areas (e.g., protected forest). Temporal characteristics are es-
pecially important for perennial crop plantations. They relate
to the rate of productivity, consumption of raw resources, and
associated emissions. Comparing to the first two solutions, the
third approach aims at the use of average cocoa production
data and average characterization factors (typical for most life
cycle impact assessment [LCIA] methodologies) with further
geo-spatial differentiation of LCA results according to the re-
gional specifics. Even though this third solution is logical, it is
not very exploited in research literature.
The challenges of perennial crops assessment are connected
also with the issue of productive and nonproductive years.
Nonproductive years could be responsible for a considerable
impact on the environment depending on the type of crop
species and farm location (6.5% to 29% of plantation life span
environmental impact) (Alaphilippe et al. 2014; Bessou et al.
2014). Bessou and colleagues (2013) reviewed the studies of life
span perennial farming LCAs and proposed a framework for the
selection of assessment approach based on the objectives of the
Raschio et al., Risk Assessment in the Supply Chain: LCA/Geostatistics
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
studies and available data. The authors suggested chronological
approach for the assessment of a specific stage production,
spatial approach for a variety of farm stages presented in a given
area, and modeling modular assessment of the environmental
impact based on different quality data. We argue that a modular
approach for LCA combined with geo-spatial analysis via
geographical information systems (GIS) can be an effective
framework for the spatio-temporal assessment of perennial
crops farming and the associated risk assessment of land use
and land-use change (LULUC) at the regional (subnational)
scale.
The idea of combination of LCA and GIS is not new. Such
tools complemented each other in the selection of the most
appropriate locations for energy crops (Gasol et al. 2011), for
more precise assessment of biodiversity and land-use impacts
(Geyer et al. 2010), for regionalization of LCIA (Liu et al.
2014; Heijungs 2012; Mastrucci et al. 2017; Mutel et al. 2012).
At the same time, no evidence of the use of GIS tools for
the spatial differentiation of LCA results has been found. For
example, carbon emissions linked to LULUC are practically
not included in LCA studies on perennial crops (Bessou et al.
2013).
Risk assessment on opposite is common as a complementary
applied method to LCA (Gemechu et al. 2016; Matthews et al.
2002; Sonnemann et al. 2004; Mouron et al. 2006). Despite
such a wide presentation of the approach, there is limited
literature on the combination of LCA, GIS, and risk assessment
tools.
The selection of the case study on cocoa farming in the
province of Tocache in the San Martin region of Peru related
to the need to identify the environmental impact of new and
established cocoa farms in the regions to establish proper rec-
ommendations for a more sustainable farm management and
relevant policies development. This problem is becoming vital
due to the predicted global shortages in cocoa and increasing
demand. In Peru alone, the cultivated area of cocoa increased
in 76,300 ha in the past 10 years (MINAGRI 2015) and pre-
dicted to take over additional 28,000 hectares (ha) by 2016
(El Comercio 2014). Thus, the development of a corresponding
environmental impact assessment framework for the farm level
is needed.
The main objective of the study is to develop a regional
framework for the cocoa ecological (environmental) footprint
assessment with the background application of LCA of an av-
erage farm. The framework should include the LCA of different
stages of cocoa farm production (modules) with further combi-
nation of results into a model farm (performed for province of
Tocache in the San Martin region of Peru). The average LCA
results then should be differentiated according to the important
aspects of cocoa production and distribution via means of GIS
and geo-spatial analysis with application of greenhouse gases’
(GHG) emission levels. Relying on the geo-spatially ranged
and distributed impacts, the framework then should identify
the statistically significant spatial clusters or hotspots of the en-
vironmental impacts and the relative risk of LULUC resulting
from the expansion of the cocoa agricultural frontier.
1379
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Figure 1 Allocation factors applied for different functional units of the study. FU1ha = functional unit for farming of 1 hectare per year of
land to produce cocoa; FU1t = functional unit for production of 1 tonne of raw cocoa; GHG = greenhouse gas.
Methods
Life Cycle Assessment
Goal and Scope
The implementation of environmental spatio-temporal
analysis of perennial crops’ production required the LCA re-
sults obtained from the production of an average 1-ha cocoa
farm in a region (based on averaged primary data from farms).
Therefore, the goal of LCA was the identification of GHG
emission from an average 1-ha cocoa farm in the province of
Tocache in the San Martin region of Peru. The framework of
spatio-temporal environmental assessment of perennial crops
was tested with an impact category of global warming poten-
tial (GWP) (global warming potential over the 100-year time
horizon; GWP100). This indicator is commonly used for the
representation of impacts of land-use changes and emissions
from agro-forestry activities (Schmidt et al. 2015; Sandin et al.
2016; Richards et al. 2017).
The study focused on the farming stage of cocoa production.
Therefore, the system boundaries included the combination
of farming activities (land preparation, production of comple-
mentary shade crop [banana], and cocoa bean production before
fermentation and drying1 ) and LULUC, which was quantified
for each farm by hectares of deforestation based on primary data
(Fornasiero and Graziani 2011).
The farms under consideration started producing cocoa
in the third year after their establishment (first year of
cocoa production). Therefore, the inputs (fertilizers and
pesticides) in the production during the first 2 years of
the plantation could not be completely allocated to cocoa
production. During the first 2 years, farms are oriented toward
banana production: a complementary shade crop of cocoa
seedlings. At the same time, a certain proportion of resources
(land, GHG, and water) was used by the cocoa seedlings.
1380 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Such a situation clearly called for proper impact allocation
rules.
The assessment was performed for two functional units: (1)
farming of 1 hectare per year (1 ha/yr) of land to produce cocoa
(FU1ha) and (2) production of 1 tonne of raw cocoa (FU1t).
These functional units are the most common in perennial LCA
studies (Vinyes et al. 2015; Cerutti et al. 2014; Mouron et al.
2006). Moreover, spatial conditioning of FU was more precisely
associated with farmers’ inputs per unit of area, rather than with
production amount. At the same time, due to association of
most of the literature data with cocoa production (Utomo et al.
2016; Ntiamoah and Afrane 2008), we also preserved a mass
FU.
The data used for the study were obtained from the farms
with different stages of cocoa growing. Five-year census data
included farms producing only cocoa (fourth year and older),
cocoa and bananas (third year), and only bananas (first 2 years).
It required certain allocation of inputs, which was performed
according to the area occupied by the plants—the strategy sim-
ilar to the approaches used in other studies (Mouron et al. 2006;
Utomo et al. 2016). Such allocation rules were applied to both
FU1ha and FU1t (figure 1). In the case of GHG emissions from
the use of inputs, they were distributed annually according to
the production amount per hectare and then adjusted to the
size of each farm (area in hectares). Raw material impact al-
location between banana and cacao was performed in the first
3 years. Regarding land-use change, in the case of FU1ha, GHG
emissions were equally distributed over 20 years and similarly
allocated between banana and cacao in the first 3 years. For
the case of FU1t, GHG emissions were equally distributed over
18 production years of cocoa production and allocated between
banana and cacao in the third year (first year of cacao produc-
tion) (WBCSD and WRI 2011). This way deforestation will
not be allocated only to the initial years of farm establishment,

Figure 2 (a) Location of the Tocache province (study area) in Peru, (b) with its four districts and the 1,892 farms analyzed in the study.
but it will be distributed over the whole productive lifetime of a
cacao farm, thus avoiding negative incentives for cocoa buyers
(i.e., delaying reporting or buying only from farms in their late
production years).
The study was framed by several assumptions which allowed
for the development of a more holistic assessment of environ-
mental impact and reduced the uncertainties of limited data
on it. Given the average lifetime of a cocoa plantation, it was
assumed that the overall life span of the farms in the region was
20 years. The study utilized the data of the first 5 years of a co-
coa farm lifetime (2 years of cocoa growth and 3 years of cocoa
production); therefore, it was assumed that the production of
cocoa farms remains stable at the level of the fifth year (Darvin
2014).
Life Cycle Inventory
The data analysis was based on the data set on 1892 farms
in the Tocache province of San Martin region (figure 2). The
data set included a geo-referenced point at the estimated center
of each farm as well as the information about the implementa-
tion year of the farm, size in hectares, and annual production
per hectare. The average production per hectare for the region
was differentiated depending on the year of cocoa plantation
(0.46 tonne/ha for the third year to 0.70 tonne/ha for the fifth
year). Moreover, the data on inputs (fertilizers and pesticides)
per hectare depending on the farm age (table 1) were acquired
from the data set provided by DEVIDA (National Commis-
sion for Development and Life Without Drugs) from a census
the institution conducted on cocoa farmers in 2011 as part of
DEVIDA’s annual monitoring activities for the performance
assessment of its Alternative Crops Program (DEVIDA 2011).
This data set encompassed farms established between 2006 and
2008; therefore, it represented farms at different cocoa produc-
tion stages for the time of the census in 2011.
DEVIDA’s data set did not include data on land-use change;
thus, our study complemented it with the information on land-
use change and GHG emissions from annual production for
Raschio et al., Risk Assessment in the Supply Chain: LCA/Geostatistics
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
each farm (average farm LCA results). Data on land-use change
caused by cocoa farming (deforestation effect) for each year
(2006 through 2010) were obtained from an official data set
generated by Peru’s Ministry of Environment (MINAM 2015).
The changes in forest cover were determined for each year via
overlapping layers of deforestation with farms’ expansion areas.
This study is based on the modular approach for the assess-
ment of environmental impact (Bessou et al. 2013) using an
average annual impact for different stages of cocoa production
in Peru (the province of Tocache in the San Martin region).
For the LCA, we chose OpenLCA 1.4 software (GreenDelta
GmbH, Berlin, Germany) to calculate GWP100 using National
Renewable Energy Laboratory U.S. inventory database and the
IPCC2013 impact assessment method (IPCC 2014). As the aim
of the study was spatio-temporal assessment of current state of
cocoa production for the more precise regionalized assessment
and establishment of allocation rules at the farm level, it re-
lied on an attributional approach. The impact of production
changes on the further functioning of the system was not a part
of the study, which excluded the use of consequential approach.
Geospatial Analysis and Geographical Information
Systems
ArcGIS 10.1 was used to analyse shapefiles of calculated
GWP100. Its application together with spatial statistic tools
allowed for mapping the clusters of intensive GHG emissions
and their spatio-temporal analysis. Geo-spatial tools included
Incremental Spatial Autocorrelation analysis (ESRI 2015) that
enabled measuring the autocorrelation of a data set by identify-
ing the distance, at which clustering events were more intense
(peak distance). Conceptualization of Spatial Relationships was
used to reflect the inherent relationships among the features
under analysis through the spatial weight matrix (ESRI 2015).
Conceptualization of Spatial Relationships represented a mod-
eling approach to determine the neighborhood of influence
for the assessment of GHG emissions clusters. It is a helpful
1381
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 1 Amount of fertilizers and pesticides inputs according to the age of the farm

Year after farm installation

Inputs (product names) Units 1 2 3 4 5

Compomaster cacao 50 kg/ha 3 4 5 6 7

Nitrophoska special 50 kg/ha 1 1 1 2 2

Urea 50 kg/ha 1 1 1 2 2

Potassium chloride 50 kg/ha 1 1 1 1.5 1.5

Triple calcium phosphate 50 kg/ha 1 1 1 1.5 1.5

Benomyl kg/ha 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.4

Matalaxyl L/ha 0 0 0.5 1 1

Matalaxyl + mancozeb L/ha 0 0 0.5 1 1

Carbendazim L/ha 0 0 0.5 1 1

Cymoxanil + mancozeb L/ha 0 0 0.5 1 1

Chlorpyrifos L/ha 0 0 0.5 1 1

Methamidophos L/ha 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.5

Note: kg/ha = kilograms per hectare; L/ha = liters per hectare.

parameter to model the influence of the spatial distribution of
features (cocoa farms) on the values (GHG emissions) of such
features.
The objectives of using geospatial tools were to: (1) identify
the presence of GHG emission clusters; (2) map clusters, if
any; and (3) identify and analyze spatial and temporal patterns
of clusters of high and low GHG emission intensity from
cocoa farming. Clustering was performed according to the
statistically significant relation (99% of confidence interval
[CI]) of being in the same group (high or low GHG emission
intensity).
Relative Risk Assessment
Geospatial clustering of GHG emissions into different
intensity groups allowed estimation of relative risk (RR) of
related variables appearance. RR was calculated as a ratio that
compares the probability of manifesting an event or variable
in two groups, and it is calculated by dividing the cumulative
incidence of one group over the cumulative incidence of the
other (Boston University School of Public Health 2016).
The approach (equation 1) was tested with characteristics
of initial deforestation (due to the farm establishment)
and subsequent deforestation (further expansion of farming
area).
P (i ) Hv
R R(i ) = , (1)
P (i ) L v
where: RR(i) – relative risk of variable appearance; P(i) – prob-
ability of presenting variable “i”; i – variables of analysis: initial
and subsequent deforestation; Hv – high-value hot spots; and
Lv – low-value hot spots.
Results
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Cocoa Farming
Application of predefined allocation rules of impact factors
between banana (shade crop) and cocoa indicated that, on
average, banana trees require 20%, 16%, and 14% of the total
amount of inputs applied per hectare of a cocoa farm in the
first 3 years. It resulted in the application of relevant allocation
factors (0.8, 0.84, and 0.86).
Although total deforestation conducted by cocoa farmers is
not as significant as that from a commercial cocoa plantation,
which can cause deforestation at an annual average rate of 500
ha/yr (Finer and Novoa 2015; Harris et al. 2015), the main
issue is the expansion of the agricultural frontier for cocoa at
the expense of forests. Annual GHG emissions attributable to
cocoa production from deforestation in the study area increased
from 2 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 -eq) in 2008 to
562 tonnes CO2 -eq in 2010 based on an FU1t (the calculation
procedure is presented in the Supporting Information available
on the Journal’s website). In the case of FU1ha, annual GHG
emissions from deforestation increased from 2 tonnes CO2 -eq
in 2008 to 515 tonnes CO2 -eq in 2010. These results indicated
that, in the study area, GHG emissions from deforestation
can represent between 4% and 49% the total GHG emissions
from cocoa production based on FU1t (figure 3). In the case
of a FU1ha, GHG emissions from deforestation can represent
between 4% and 46% the total GHG emissions from cocoa
production (figure 3).

1382 Journal of Industrial Ecology


Figure 3 Relative temporal distribution of GHG emissions in
studied farms. FU 1 ha = functional unit for farming of 1 hectare per
year of land to produce cocoa; FU 1 ton = functional unit for
production of 1 tonne of raw cocoa; GHG = greenhouse gas; ha =
hectare.
Spatial Statistics Analysis
Statistically significant low- and high-impact clusters were
indicated for 2008, 2009, and 2010. Low-value emission clusters
were constantly localized northwest from the marketplace at the
boundary between Polvora and Tocache districts, while high-
value impact clusters were highlighted in close vicinity in the
Tochache district and in the Nuevo Progreso district (figure 4).
Relative Risk
Results demonstrated that farms in high-value clusters were
statistically more likely to conduct land-use change than farms
in low-value hotspots (table 2). For clusters in 2008, there is
no statistically significant evidence that farms in high-value
hotspots are more likely to incur in initial deforestation (caused
by the establishment of the farm within a 20-year period) or
subsequent deforestation (caused by the expansion of the farm
borders during the year of analysis) when compared to farms
in low-value hotspots. On the other hand, results for clusters
in 2009 and 2010 indicate that there is statistically significant
evidence that new farms in high-value clusters were about twice
as likely to establish at least part of their cocoa farming land
in previously forested areas and to expand their farming area at
the expense of forest cover loss than farms in low-value clusters
(table 2).
In both 2009 and 2010, farms belonging to low-value clusters
appear to have a larger average farm area than those in high-
value clusters (table 3). Also, in both years, farms in high-
value clusters appear to have more primary and secondary forests
within their boundaries in comparison to farms in low-value
clusters (table 3).
Discussion
Our findings indicated that the use of average environmental
impacts at the national scale present limitations for perennial
crops characterization at the regional scale. For example, the
Raschio et al., Risk Assessment in the Supply Chain: LCA/Geostatistics
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
application of country average GWP of 0.32 kilograms (kg)
CO2 -eq per 1 kg of cocoa (Ntiamoah and Afrane 2008) to the
researched region in Peru would result in overestimation of
average GHG emission levels of 36% in 2008 and underestima-
tion of about 400% for 2009 and 2010 (figure 3). Therefore, the
adoption of country-level average values for GHG emissions for
perennial crops can negatively affect the prioritization process
of areas requiring technical and financial support to mitigate
GHG emissions from agricultural practices, thus becoming
a barrier for regional low-carbon development. Performing
an LCA analysis for hundreds of farms as a first approach
to identify GHG emissions clusters might not be a plausible
first approach, either for a national program or private sector
stakeholder. However, methodologies like the one presented
in this study could be further developed and adapted to local
circumstances to use available data on deforestation to identify
those clusters of farms with higher GHG emissions at the local
level. Therefore, this method could be employed as a low-cost,
preliminary filter in selecting the farms that should be priori-
tized in low-carbon strategies with a higher spatial resolution
than the one offered by country-level LCA averages. Finally,
country-wide average impact factors will affect “responsible”
farmers who conduct low-carbon agriculture by overlooking
their good practices and hindering their access to green buyers.
Also, our results showed that the selection of an FU, either
mass or area, influenced the proportion of GHG emission from
deforestation regarding total annual emissions. This article also
highlights the effect of the FU selection on GHG emissions
accounting. On the one hand, both FUs generated the same
amount of annual GHG emissions from cacao production (use
of inputs). On the other hand, a FU1t resulted in up to 5%
more total annual GHG emissions and 11% more GHG emis-
sions from deforestation than an FU1ha. Additionally, GHG
emissions from land-use change represent a lower share of total
annual emissions when using an FU1ha rather than an FU1t.
Therefore, the selection of FU can affect the results of LCA,
the argument supported by the other literature (Smetana et al.
2015; Nemecek et al. 2016). For this reason, it becomes impor-
tant to take into consideration the FU used in the calculations
on which GHG emission reports rely on.
Cocoa plantations often involve the co-production with
other “shade crops” in the initial years of plantation genesis
(Utomo et al. 2016). Other LCA studies on cocoa did not con-
duct an explicit allocation of environmental impacts between
the main production and a supplementary crop at the early
stages of production (Utomo et al. 2016; Ntiamoah and Afrane
2008). Proper allocation of the environmental impact to shade
crops adds an additional point to the discussion of nonproduc-
tive years of perennial crops LCA. Moreover, the calculations
could be complicated using different varieties of complementary
crops. This study introduces two approaches to allocate GHG
emissions, one for an FU1t and one for an FU1ha, for those
emissions taking place in years when shade crops are present.
Furthermore, the application of specified allocation rules and
averaged GHG emission spatial distribution approach should
indicate the impact of cocoa production more precisely.
1383
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Figure 4 High- and low-value emission clusters (tonnes CO2 -eq/tonne cocoa) in (a) 2008, (b) 2009, and (c) 2010. High and low emission
clusters are not comparable in between different years. CO2 -eq = carbon dioxide equivalent.
Our results suggest that spatial statistic tools, in particular
cluster analysis also known as hotspot analysis, can provide
relevant instruments to understand the relation between high
GHG emission levels from agricultural production, as well as
initial and subsequent deforestation. The possibility of farms
association into clusters of high and low levels of GHG emis-
sions allowed the identification of environmental hotspots,
which appear to be related to the risk of land-use change. For
example, it is provoking to highlight a trend in the years 2009
and 2010 on how farms in high-emission-level clusters have a
higher RR of expanding their farming areas into forested areas
(subsequent deforestation). This result makes sense in the light
of the characteristics of the farms in high-value clusters, which
have smaller average areas, but larger cover of both primary
and secondary forest. It is usually the case that smaller farms
will find deforestation a viable option to expand their farming
area. Also, in the areas where the application of inputs is not
efficient due to the provision of those inputs via an interna-
tional development program to eradicate illegal cocoa leaf crop
(DEVIDA), it can be expected that farmers might find it attrac-
tive to expand their farming areas claiming benefits to avoid
1384 Journal of Industrial Ecology
turning into illegal crops. Therefore, farms in high-value clus-
ters would take an extensive approach to improve their cocoa
production volumes.
Another point to consider would be the fact that farms pro-
ducing cocoa in high-value clusters for the first year in 2009 or
2010 presented a higher relative risk of being implemented in
previously forested areas than those farms in low-value clusters.
It might be the case that the establishment of new farms in
2007 and 2008 (so producing cocoa for the first time in 2009
and 2010, respectively) might have been conducted by migrant
farmers motivated by the incentives of subsidized and/or free
inputs for agricultural production. These migrant farmers, who
own no property and have little options to generate incomes
beside agriculture, usually are prone to being engaged in slash-
and-burn agriculture (Tubiello et al. 2015; Raschio et al. 2017).
The identification and prediction of high environmental
impacting areas might be beneficial for carbon reduction
incentives of chocolate producers, but might also hold certain
negative consequences for cocoa farmers. Even though our
methodology is aiming toward the promotion of more environ-
mentally sustainable production, it might result in association
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 2 Relative risk (RR) analysis between high-value and low-value clusters

CI 95%

Relative Risk (RR)

Significance test
Standard error
Lower limit

Upper limit

Z-statistic
Variables

P-value
Year

2008 Initial deforestation 2.09 0.20 22.24 0.52 0.61 0.553 Discarded

Subsequent deforestation 6.27 0.79 50.02 0.46 1.73 0.083 Discarded

2009 Initial deforestation 1.95 1.07 3.55 0.13 2.18 0.029 Significant

Subsequent deforestation 2.15 1.37 3.40 0.10 3.30 0.001 Significant

2010 Initial deforestation 1.94 1.01 3.74 0.14 1.99 0.046 Significant

Subsequent deforestation 1.87 1.12 3.13 0.11 2.38 0.017 Significant

Note: CI = confidence interval.

Table 3 Main characteristics of identified high-value and low-value clusters

2009 2010
Farms in high-value Farms in low-value Farms in high-value Farms in low-value
Variables clusters (total = 220) clusters (total = 474) clusters (total = 244) clusters (total = 474)

Farms conducting organic 87 239 99 226

farming
Farms participation in a farmers’ 30 190 40 193
association
Average farm size (ha) 1.17 1.53 1.24 1.51

Average primary forest within 0.9 0.17 1.42 0.29

farms (ha)
Average secondary forest within 0.46 0.29 0.42 0.29
farms (ha)
Note: ha = hectares.

of low-carbon farms into regions of high-impact clusters or
opposite low-impact ones. In both cases, we argue that our
model showed evidence that it was possible to relate emission
intensity at farm level with the likelihood of manifestation of
environmental variables.
Our approach can provide a preliminary indicator of areas
location with high land-use change risk without the necessity
of developing full land-use change models. However, the appli-
cation of the suggested approach is limited to those agri-food
companies that can trace their supply chains to the regional
level. Our approach narrows down the location of clusters, thus
facilitates the delimitation of an assessment area for a local as-
sessment. We recommend that clusters should be assessed to
identify outliers that might respond to the specific characteris-
tics of a study area.
Our study relied on spatially and temporally variable data,
which resulted in variations of high-emission and low-emission
clusters distribution. While outlining certain trends in their
distribution, it was possible to significantly predict only the ap-
pearance, but not the magnitude, of subsequent deforestation.
Therefore, this methodology could be used in two ways: (1)
use LCA results to help identify clusters of farms that might
incur in deforestation activities and (2) use free and available
satellite imagery to assess deforestation and identify clusters
of farms with high GHG emission from farming processes.
As an accepted practice, quantification of past deforestation
should be conducted via an assessment of historical land-use
and land-cover change whereas the quantification of subse-
quent deforestation can be estimated via spatial prediction
models.
The study relied on the assumption that all the farmers use
the same annual amount of resources per hectare of a farm,
which led to the averaged LCA results for the region. They
might be different for other crops and areas. Even though such

Raschio et al., Risk Assessment in the Supply Chain: LCA/Geostatistics 1385

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
a practice is not commonly used in LCA studies, the testing
indicated the possibilities of such approach application on small
regional scales. At the same time, we agree that diversification
of impact assessment model according to the group of farms
with similar conditions might improve its resolution abilities.
Further improvement of risk and geo-spatial analyses could be
performed with the consequential LCA approach with a longer
temporal dimension. Such approach will not only identify more
precisely the potential future impact of cocoa harvesting in the
region, but also provide a feedback on the indirect impacts of
further expansion of cocoa production (Weidema 2000; Suh
et al. 2010; Weidema and Schmidt 2010).
Based on the available information from our data set, we
focused on GHG emission analysis only on the first 5 years
of a cocoa farm lifetime (from implementation of the farm
to the third year of cocoa production). Ideally, the method
we presented could be applied to a larger data set covering
longer periods and/or to other perennial crops (i.e., coffee) that
are known to be drivers of deforestation in various locations.
The investigation on the change of impacts with the use of
other than banana shade crops could be an additional aspect
for further studies.
Conclusions
Addressing land-use change issues in agri-food supply chains
demands data at an adequate level that can be provided by mod-
els of higher spatial and temporal resolution allowing for more
accurate calculations of product footprint (Godar et al. 2015).
Such spatially explicit models facilitate the understanding of lo-
cal drivers of environmental change that motivate subsequent
deforestation in supply chains, thus avoiding the pitfall of as-
suming that the impacts of one unit of product are homogeneous
at the country or regional levels (Meyfroidt et al. 2014). It is
a viable path to explore the combination of LCA with GIS
and geostatistics, which might lead to faster, more accurate
and resource-efficient ways to tackle environmental impacts
while also accounting for important environmental impacts
such as deforestation. It is only through better understanding of
the strengths and weaknesses of suppliers that organizations
can identify opportunities for environmental improvement
(Hajmohammad et al. 2013).
Spatial variables, such as land-use change and the temporal
dynamics of environmental impacts, should be incorporated
into regional LCA studies of perennial crops. From one side,
there is the potential of diversification of regional average LCA
results and, from the other side, it has the potential to increase
spatial and temporal precision of regionalized impact assessment
results. This article discussed the potential of using the first
approach to indicate high-value impact clusters, which have a
higher probability of emissions and deforestation in the future.
At the same time, the study has not addressed a few issues on
results variations caused by the different crops, locations, and
management techniques, which would be a viable approach for
further research.
1386 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the generous financial
support granted by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
under an International Climate Protection Fellowship.
Funding Information
The research leading to these results has received fund-
ing from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under an
International Climate Protection Fellowship.
Note
1. The study did not include the data on drying and fermentation
as those processes took place at the processing facilities of cocoa
buyers.
References
Alaphilippe, A., J. Boissy, S. Simon, and C. Godard. 2014. Using of the
LCA methodological framework in perennial crops: Comparison
of two contrasted European apple orchards. In Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-
Food Sector(LCA Food 2014), San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–10
October, 2014, 11–15. Tacoma, WA, USA: American Center
for Life Cycle Assessment.
Basset-Mens, C., H. Vannière, D. Grasselly, H. Heitz, A. Braun, S.
Payen, P. Koch, and Y. Biard. 2016. Environmental impacts of
imported and locally grown fruits for the French market: A cradle-
to-farm-gate LCA study. Fruits 71(2): 93–104.
Bessou, C., C. Basset-Mens, C. Latunussa, A. Vélu, H. Heitz, H.
Vannière, and J. P. Caliman. 2014. LCA of perennial crops:
Implications of modeling choices through two contrasted case
studies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life
Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), San
Francisco, CA, USA, 8–10 October, 2014, 125–133. Tacoma,
WA, USA: American Center for Life Cycle Assessment.
Bessou, C., C. Basset-Mens, T. Tran, and A. Benoist. 2013. LCA
applied to perennial cropping systems: A review focused on the
farm stage. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18(2):
340–361.
Boston University School of Public Health. 2016. Measures of asso-
ciation. Boston, MA, USA: Boston University School of Public
Health.
Cerutti, A. K., G. L. Beccaro, S. Bruun, S. Bosco, D. Donno, B. Notar-
nicola, and G. Bounous. 2014. Life cycle assessment application
in the fruit sector: State of the art and recommendations for
environmental declarations of fruit products. Journal of Cleaner
Production 73: 125–135.
Cerutti, A. K., S. Bruun, G. L. Beccaro, and G. Bounous. 2011. A review
of studies applying environmental impact assessment methods on
fruit production systems. Journal of Environmental Management
92(10): 2277–2286.
Cerutti, A. K., S. Bruun, D. Donno, G. L. Beccaro, and G. Bounous.
2013. Environmental sustainability of traditional foods: The case
of ancient apple cultivars in Northern Italy assessed by multifunc-
tional LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production 52: 245–252.

Ciroth, A., M. Hagelüken, G. W. Sonnemann, F. Castells, and G.
Fleischer. 2002. Geographical and technological differences in life
cycle inventories shown by the use of process models for waste
incinerators. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
7(6): 363–368.
Coltro, L., A. Mourad, P. Oliveira, J. Baddini, and R. Kletecke. 2006.
Environmental profile of Brazilian green coffee. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11(1): 16–21.
Comercio, El. 2014. Perú Podrı́a Ser El Lı́der Mundial En Exportación
de Cacao. [Peru could become the world leader in cacao ex-
ports]. El Comercio. Lima, Peru. http://elcomercio.pe/economia/
peru/peru-podria-lider-mundial-exportacion-cacao-noticia-
1704459. Accessed 22 January 2014.
Darvin, P. 2014. Personal communication with P. Darvin, Field Expert
on Cacao Farms Survey. DEVIDA. Lima, Peru. May 28.
DEVIDA. 2011. Alternative Crops Monitoring Data for 2011-2012.
Edited by DEVIDA. Lima.
ESRI. 2015. ArcGIS Help 10.1—Spatial Statistics Toolbox.
ESRI Press. USA. http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/
10.1/index.html#//005p0000000n000000. Accessed 17 July 2014.
Finer, M., and S. Novoa. 2015. Patrones y Drivers de la Deforestación
en la Amazonı́a Peruana [Patterns and drivers of deforestation in
peruvian Amazon]. MAAP Sı́ntesis #1.
Finnveden, G. and M. Nilsson. 2005. Site-dependent life-cycle im-
pact assessment in Sweden. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 10(4): 235–239.
Foley, J. A., N. Ramankutty, K. A. Brauman, E. S. Cassidy, J. S. Gerber,
M. Johnston, N. D. Mueller, et al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated
planet. Nature 478(7369): 337–342.
Fornasiero, P. and M. Graziani, eds. 2011. Renewable resources and
renewable energy: A global challenge. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC.
Gasol, C. M., X. Gabarrell, M. Rigola, S. González-Garcı́a, and J.
Rieradevall. 2011. Environmental assessment: (LCA) and spatial
modelling (GIS) of energy crop implementation on local scale.
Biomass and Bioenergy 35(7): 2975–2985.
Gavankar, S., S. Anderson, and A. A. Keller. 2015. Critical compo-
nents of uncertainty communication in life cycle assessments of
emerging technologies. Journal of Industrial Ecology 19(3): 468–
479.
Gemechu, E. D., C. Helbig, G. Sonnemann, A. Thorenz, and A. Tuma.
2016. Import-based indicator for the geopolitical supply risk of
raw materials in life cycle sustainability assessments. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 20(1): 154–165.
Geyer, R., D. M. Stoms, J. P. Lindner, F. W. Davis, and B. Wittstock.
2010. Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land
use. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15(5): 454–
467.
Godar, J. U., M. Persson, E. J. Tizado, and P. Meyfroidt. 2015.
Towards more accurate and policy relevant footprint analy-
ses: Tracing Fi Ne-Scale socio-environmental impacts of pro-
duction to consumption. Ecological Economics 112: 25–35.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.003
Hajmohammad, S., S. Vachon, R. D. Klassen, and I. Gavronski. 2013.
Reprint of lean management and supply management: Their role
in green practices and performance. Journal of Cleaner Production
56: 86–93.
Harris, N., O. A. Payne, and S. A. Mann. 2015. How much Rainforest
is in that chocolate bar? Washington DC, USA: World Resources
Institute.
Heijungs, R. 2012. Spatial differentiation, GIS-based regionalization,
hyperregionalization, and the boundaries of LCA. Milano, Italy:
Raschio et al., Risk Assessment in the Supply Chain: LCA/Geostatistics
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Environment and Energy (Editorial Series of Italian Commod-
ity Science Academy and Engineering Association of Messina)
Franco Angeli, 165–176.
Herrmann, I. T., M. Z. Hauschild, M. D. Sohn, and T. E. McKone.
2014. Confronting uncertainty in life cycle assessment used for
decision support. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18(3): 366–379.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate
change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, edited by R. K. Pachauri and L. A. Meyer.
Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Liu, K. F.-R., M.-J. Hung, P.-C. Yeh, and J.-Y. Kuo. 2014. GIS-based
regionalization of LCA. Journal of Geoscience and Environment
Protection 2(2): 1–8.
Maier, M., M. Mueller, and X. Yan. 2017. Introducing a localised spatio-
temporal LCI method with wheat production as exploratory case
study. Journal of Cleaner Production 140(pt 2): 492–501.
Mastrucci, A., A. Marvuglia, E. Popovici, U. Leopold, and E. Benetto.
2017. Geospatial characterization of building material stocks for
the life cycle assessment of end-of-life scenarios at the urban scale.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 123: 54–66.
Matthews, H. S., L. Lave, and Heather Maclean. 2002. Life cycle im-
pact assessment: A challenge for risk analysts. Risk Analysis 22(5).
www.ce.cmu.edu/greendesign/docs/life-cycle-impact.pdf. Ac-
cessed 26 September 2017.
Meyfroidt, P., K. M. Carlson, M. E. Fagan, V. H. Gutiérrez-
Vélez, M. N. Macedo, L. M. Curran, R. S. DeFries, et al.
2014. Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion in
tropical forest landscapes. Environmental Research Letters 9(7).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074012.
Milà i Canals, L., G. M. Burnip, and S. J. Cowell. 2006. Evaluation
of the environmental impacts of apple production using life cy-
cle assessment (LCA): Case study in New Zealand. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 114(2–4): 226–238.
MINAGRI (Ministry of Agriculture of Peru). 2015. Agriculture and
livestock Dynamics 2004–2013. Chapter III. Lima: Ministry of
Agriculture of Peru.
MINAM (Ministry of Environment of Peru). 2015. Estrategia Na-
cional Sobre Bosques Y Cambio Climático—Mapa de Perdida
de Bosque Amazonica 2001–2013. [National Strategy on Forests
and Climate Change—Amazonic Forest Loss Map 2001–2013].
edited by MINAM. Lima: MINAM.
Mouron, P., T. Nemecek, R. W. Scholz, and O. Weber. 2006. Manage-
ment influence on environmental impacts in an apple production
system on Swiss fruit farms: Combining life cycle assessment with
statistical risk assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
114(2–4): 311–322.
Mutel, C. L. and S. Hellweg. 2009. Regionalized life cycle assess-
ment: Computational methodology and application to inven-
tory databases. Environmental Science & Technology 43(15): 5797–
5803.
Mutel, C. L., S. Pfister, and S. Hellweg. 2012. GIS-based regionalized
life cycle assessment: How big is small enough? Methodology
and case study of electricity generation. Environmental Science &
Technology 46(2): 1096–1103.
Nemecek, T., N. Jungbluth, L. Milà i Canals, and R. Schenck. 2016. En-
vironmental impacts of food consumption and nutrition: Where
are we and what is next? The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 21(5): 607–620.
Nitschelm, L., J. Aubin, M. S. Corson, V. Viaud, and C. Walter. 2016.
Spatial differentiation in life cycle assessment LCA applied to an
1387
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
agricultural territory: Current practices and method development.
Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 2472–2484.
Ntiamoah, A. and G. Afrane. 2008. Environmental impacts of co-
coa production and processing in Ghana: Life cycle assessment
approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(16): 1735–1740.
Raschio, G., S. Smetana, C. Contreras, A. Mathys, and V. Heinz. 2017.
Spatiotemporal tools for regional low-carbon development: Link-
ing LCA and GIS to assess clusters of GHG emissions from cocoa
farming in Peru. In Sustainability Through Innovation in Product Life
Cycle Design. Singapore: Springer.
Richards, M., M. Pogson, M. Dondini, E. O. Jones, A. Hastings, D.
N. Henner, M. J. Tallis, et al. 2017. High-resolution spatial mod-
elling of greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change to energy
crops in the UK. GCB Bioenergy 9(3): 627–644.
Sandin, G., G. M. Peters, and M. Svanström. 2016. LCA of forest
products—Challenges and solutions. In Life cycle assessment of
forest products, 25–67. Part of the SpringerBriefs in Molecular
Science series. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Schmidt, J. H., B. P. Weidema, and M. Brandão. 2015. A framework
for modelling indirect land use changes in life cycle assessment.
Journal of Cleaner Production 99: 230–238.
Smetana, S., A. Mathys, A. Knoch, and V. Heinz. 2015. Meat alter-
natives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20(9): 1254–
1267.
Sonnemann, A. G., F. Castells, and M. Schuhmacher, eds. 2004. In-
tegrated life-cycle and risk assessment for industrial processes. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC.
Supporting Information
Supporting information is linked to this article on the JIE website:
Supporting Information S1: This supporting information includes details of GHG emissions calculations from deforestation
and GHG emissions calculations from cocoa production.
1388 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Suh, S., B. Weidema, J. H. Schmidt, and R. Heijungs. 2010. Gen-
eralized make and use framework for allocation in life cy-
cle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14(2): 335–353.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00235.x.
Tubiello, F. N., M. Salvatore, A. F. Ferrara, J. House, S. Fed-
erici, S. Rossi, R. Biancalani, et al. 2015. The contribution
of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global
warming, 1990-2012. Global Change Biology 21(7): 2655–2660.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12865
Utomo, B., A. A. Prawoto, S. Bonnet, A. Bangviwat, and S. H. Ghee-
wala. 2016. Environmental performance of cocoa production from
monoculture and agroforestry systems in Indonesia. Journal of
Cleaner Production 134: 583–591.
Vinyes, E., C. M. Gasol, L. Asin, S. Alegre, and P. Muñoz. 2015. Life
cycle assessment of multiyear peach production. Journal of Cleaner
Production 104: 68–79.
WBCSD (World Business Council on Sustainable Development) and
WRI (World Resources Institute). 2011. Product Life Cycle Ac-
counting and Reporting Standard. Washington, DC, USA: World
Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Re-
source Institute.
Weidema, B. 2000. Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assess-
ment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(3): 11–33.
Weidema, B. P. and J. H. Schmidt. 2010. Avoiding allocation in life
cycle assessment revisited. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14(2): 192–
195.
Yang, Y. 2016. Toward a more accurate regionalized life cycle inven-
tory. Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 308–315.
Copyright of Journal of Industrial Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.