Evaluation of sustainability in strawberry crops production under greenhouse and open-field systems in the Andes

ABSTRACT

The use of natural resources for food production and the identification of viable solutions to problems related to agricultural sustainability are topics of current debate. Our proposed objectives were to: i) determine the agronomic characteristics of strawberry crops in open-field and aeroponic greenhouse production systems, ii) assess the sustainability of production systems concerning social, environmental, economic, and governance dimensions, and iii) identify the variability of sustainability scores between production systems. Surveys were conducted on small Mestizo strawberry producers with open-field production systems and aeroponic production researchers in the Ecuadorian Andes. The SAFA-FAO methodology was applied, considering 111 indicators, 56 subtopics, and 20 topics, distributed among the four dimensions. A principal component analysis was performed using the Infostat programme. The sustainability score (0–5) of the aeroponic system was 1.09 times higher than that of the traditional system. The dimensions of economic resilience (2.23) and good governance (2.29) obtained low scores in the open-field system, and in the aeroponic production system the dimensions with high scores were environmental integrity (4.05) and social welfare (4.46). The identified sustainability dynamics contribute to a better multidimensional understanding for decision-makers and are a contribution toward meeting the goals of the UN’s 2030 Agenda.

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainable development
• Respectful food production
• Sustainable production

1. Introduction

Two of the challenges for the world’s population are to end hunger and poverty, which are part of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) number 1 (No Poverty) and number 2 (Zero Hunger) of the UN’s 2030 Agenda (Gennari et al., 2019). At the same time, it is essential to make agriculture and food systems sustainable (SDG number 12). However, providing fresh, phytosanitary-residue-free food for the next generations is the main concern, especially for the planet’s growing population (Alexandratrs & Bruinsma, 2012). Several studies state that global food production must increase by 50 to 70% to feed the world’s population by 2050 (FAO, 2009), as the population is expected to exceed ten billion people, i.e. 25% more people than now (Sadigov, 2022; United Nations, 2019). A large proportion of the population increase will occur in developing countries (Cohen, 2001; Van Dijk et al., 2021).

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2011), the dense concentration of people has important socio-economic ramifications, as well as problems of food production, supply, and security. In the future, the additional pressure will be centred on how we use natural resources more efficiently to produce food. Natural resources include soil, water, and air and humanity must strive to use them sustainably. However, about a quarter of arable land has been declared unproductive, infertile, and unsuitable for agricultural activities (Montanarella et al., 2015; Pennock et al., 2015). The reasons behind these problems are inadequate soil management, soil degradation (Barreto-Álvarez et al., 2020), rapid regional weather changes (Toulkeridis et al., 2020; Torres, Andrade, et al., 2022; Torres, Cayambe, et al., 2022), rapid urbanization, industrialization, reduced possibilities for the recovery of natural fertility, continuous cropping, frequent droughts, reduced water management, loss of biodiversity, water pollution, and groundwater depletion (Popp et al., 2014; Heredia-R, Torres, et al., 2021).

The use of resources and food are popular topics in the current sustainability debate (Kates et al., 2001). Sustainability is seen as a normative notion of how people should act towards nature and how they are responsible to each other and to future generations (Clark, 2007; Clark & Dickson, 2003). The concept of sustainability and its dimensions, sub-dimensions, and representation serves to draw attention to the importance of critical reflection on what is meant by sustainability, given that it is continuously evolving (Dalal-Clayton & Sadler, 2014; Heredia-R, Villegas, et al., 2021; Pope et al., 2017). As a visionary and forward-looking development paradigm, sustainable development emphasizes a positive transformation trajectory anchored in social, economic, and environmental factors. According to Taylor (2016), the three main topics of sustainable development are economic growth, environmental protection, and social equality. Based on this, it can be argued that the concept of sustainable development rests, fundamentally, on three conceptual pillars. These pillars are ‘economic sustainability,’ ‘social sustainability,’ and ‘environmental sustainability,’ to which ‘governance’ can also be added.

For FAO (2014a), sustainability is a multidimensional concept that encompasses environmental integrity, social well-being, economic resilience, and good governance. Each of these sustainability dimensions is related to the various productive and food dynamics (FAO, 2013a). Against this backdrop, FAO published the guidelines for the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) with the aim of identifying the components of the production system that contribute to sustainability and the areas of concern (FAO, 2014b). SAFA results can be used to improve food and agriculture productivity and efficiency, as well as to identify potential solutions to sustainability related problems (Heredia-R et al., 2022). There are several tools available to assess sustainability based on indicators: Farm Sustainability Indicators (IDEA, acronym in French) (Zahm et al., 2008), response that induces the evaluation of sustainability (RISE) (Häni et al., 2003; Heredia-R, Torres, et al., 2020), Public Goods Tool (PG) (Gerrard et al., 2012), but the marked difference in SAFA is the preparation times. calculation, reporting and total evaluation are the fastest among RISE, PG and IDEA and has been considered with adequate scores regarding (1) understanding of the tool, (2) working with the tool, (3) ease of use for the farmer and (4) time requirement (De Olde, Oudshoorn, Sørensen, et al., 2016).

SAFA has been used in different agricultural and livestock production systems, for instance in conventional-scale beef cattle production systems (Weiler et al., 2019), Indigenous agriculture in Paraguay (Soldi et al., 2019), traditional agroforestry systems in the Amazon (Heredia-R et al., 2022; Torres, Andrade, et al., 2022; Heredia-R, Falconí, et al., 2020), and in the Ecuadorian Andes (Cayambe et al., 2021), aquaculture production of Pangasianodon hypopthalamus in Bangladesh (Haque et al., 2021), dairy production systems in the central highlands and the tropics of Mexico (Pérez-Lombardini et al., 2021; Torres-Lemus et al., 2021), organic livestock production systems in the mountainous areas of central Sicily (Cammarata et al., 2021), fish production systems in Lagos, Nigeria (Olafare et al., 2022), and rice production systems in the highlands of Pagar Alam in Indonesia (Amaruzaman et al., 2023).

Strawberries are grown worldwide in approximately 80 countries (FAO, 2022a, 2022b), including tropical, subtropical, and temperate regions (Hummer, 2008). Global strawberry production was valued at $14 billion in 2020 (FAO, 2021). In Ecuador, 1,438.45 tons were produced in 2021, in an executive harvested area of 101 ha, with an average yield of 142,034 (100 g/ha) (FAOSTAT, 2023). Improved technology in production has contributed to higher yields and better product quality (Antunes & Peres, 2013; Varela et al., 2021). Strawberries are a labour-intensive crop, especially during harvest. Labour accounts for 40% of the costs associated with field-grown strawberries, of which almost 90% is attributed to harvesting (Bolda et al., 2016; Guan et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2018), which can impact the welfare of workers due to high pesticide residues in the fruit, which are a telltale trace of widespread and intensive use of pesticides in their production and distribution (Parker, 2015). Furthermore, maintaining soil quality remains a key challenge for the sustainability of strawberry production systems. This challenge is particularly noticeable when warm temperatures can lead to increased pressure from pests, including elevated levels of soil-borne pathogens, weeds, and nematodes. These soil-borne pest pressures combined with strawberry growers’ limited ability to rotate their crops on a small acreage have led to a historical reliance on methyl bromide, which is now being replaced by other synthetic fumigants or non-fumigant-based systems (Louws, 2009; Sydorovych et al., 2006). Our objectives were: a) to determine the agronomic characteristics of the strawberry crop in open-field and aeroponic production systems; b) to evaluate the sustainability of the production systems under social, environmental, economic, and governance dimensions; and c) to identify the variability of sustainability scores between production systems. Lastly, the article presents a section on the potential agri-food and agri-environmental policy implications aimed at educating people about sustainability as a contribution to the SDGs of the UN’s 2030 Agenda. The implications were obtained by comparing the two production systems.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Description of the study area

The study was conducted in two sectors in the province of Imbabura, which is considered an agroecological zone in the Andes of Ecuador (Heifer, 2014). Sector A comprises the rural parishes of Gonzalez Suarez, San Jose de Quichinche, and San Juan de Iluman, and involves open-field production systems (2,743 masl; 0.23457 altitude), whereas sector B is the Research Center of the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, Ibarra City (2,225 masl; 0.35171 altitude) (Figure 1). The predominant ecosystems in the study area are: semi-deciduous forest and shrubland in the northern valleys (BmMn01), montane evergreen shrubland in the northern Andes (AsMn01), montane lakeside flooded grassland (HsMn01), evergreen forest in foothills (BsPn01), montane evergreen forest (BsMn03), and high montane evergreen forest (BsAn03) (MAE, 2013). The temperature in the study area ranges between 10 and 21°C, precipitation fluctuates between 340 and 670 mm per year and the relative humidity ranges from 67.33% to 82.38%.

Figure 1. Study area distributed in: A) open-field production systems distributed at a parish level, and B) aeroponic production system located at the Research Center of the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, in the Andes.

2.2. Sample size and data collection

In the sustainability assessment of production systems, specific challenges are related to the management of producers’ time and resources (De Olde, Oudshoorn, Bokkers, et al., 2016; De Olde, Oudshoorn, Sørensen, et al., 2016; Heredia-R, Falconí, et al., 2020b; Heredia-R et al., 2022). The point of data saturation or redundancy or, to clarify, the point at which new evidence is no longer obtained from the data source (Guest et al., 2006), has been identified in other research projects after 6 or 12 to 15 individual interviews (Isman et al., 2013; Latham, 2013). Therefore, a sample of 24 participants was selected to be representative, based on crop type and production system. All research methods and ethics were approved in accordance with institutional protocols, and ethical principles (Vanclay et al., 2013) were applied by discussing the objectives, risks, methodology, and timeline of the study with all participants.

The data came from a face-to-face survey carried out in the same space and time between the interviewer and interviewee (January 2020). Twelve interviews were conducted with strawberry growers utilizing the open-field production system following the Snowball sampling technique (Kirchherr & Charles, 2018), and 12 interviews with crop researchers following the aeroponic production system. The questionnaire was semi-structured and divided into two sections: 1) agronomic characteristics of the crop, and 2) sustainability indicators (FAO, 2014a). The average duration per interviewee was 50 to 75 min.

The open-field production systems comprised beds being formed on the ground with double rows, 30 cm from ground level, and a bed width of 60 cm (Louws, 2009) (Figure 2). The aeroponic production system is characterized by the plant roots being suspended in the air and growing inside empty, dark containers (modules), where nutrient solutions are applied in a nebulized manner (Mohamed et al., 2022) (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Open-field strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) production system in the Andes of Ecuador. a) Planting beds on the ground; b) Spacing the plants across the planting beds; and c) Fruiting of the crop.

Figure 3. Aeroponic strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) production system in the Andes of Ecuador. a) Production modules; b) Distribution of seedlings in the production module; and c) Flowering of the plants.

2.3. Sustainability evaluation

For the sustainability assessment, the SAFA guidelines, developed by the UN’s FAO, were applied. They are a holistic global framework for sustainability assessment along food and agriculture value chains (FAO, 2014a). SAFA was formulated on the basis of eight principles: holistic management, relevance, rigour, efficiency, performance-orientation, transparency, adaptability, and continuous improvement. It is structured on the basis of four hierarchical levels: dimensions, topics, subtopics, and indicators (FAO, 2014a).

SAFA includes four sustainability dimensions: good governance, environmental integrity, economic resilience, and social well-being. At an intermediate level, it comprises 21 sustainability topics, defined by 58 subtopics and 116 indicators (Appendix 1), which can be measured by performance on a scale of 1 to 5 (FAO, 2014a). On an increasing scale, together with a traffic light colour code, sustainability practices are defined as: unacceptable (0–1; red), limited (0.1–2; orange), moderate (2.1–3; yellow), good (3.1–4: light green), and best (4.1–5; dark green). In the two production systems (Figure 2 and Figure 3), the topic of animal welfare topic (which includes 2 subtopics and 5 indicators) was not evaluated; therefore, only 111 indicators, 56 subtopics and 20 topics were considered, divided into the four dimensions: good governance (5 topics, 14 subtopics, and 19 indicators), environmental integrity (5 topics, 12 subtopics, and 47 indicators), economic resilience (4 topics, 14 subtopics, and 26 indicators), and social well-being (6 topics, 16 subtopics, and 19 indicators).

For the systematization of the sustainability indicators, the SAFA programme (version 3.0) (https://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-assessments-safa/safa-tool/en/) was used. This programme has four steps for evaluation: ‘Mapping,’ ‘Contextualization,’ ‘Indicators,’ and ‘Reporting’ (FAO, 2014b).

Mapping identifies what is being measured about the production systems, what the organizational and operational limitations are, and what interactions take place in the production network. The purpose of contextualizing the subtopics and indicators is to refine the measurements and ensure that the scores are appropriate based on the circumstances surrounding the production systems. Meanwhile, at the indicator phase the input for collecting all the data from the responses to the questions per indicator is provided, the accuracy score is defined, and the performance of the indicator of the production systems evaluated is rated in a range from ‘best’ to ‘unacceptable.’ Lastly, in the reporting step, based on the information entered, a single SAFA evaluation result per production system is synthesized by means of a radar graph (FAO, 2013a, 2013b).

2.4. Statistical analysis

A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed with the data matrix of the 24 strawberry production scenarios and the response variables related to governance, environmental, economic, and social well-being aspects. The objective of the analysis was to collectively describe the variability present in terms of the variables involved in the study. The graph resulting from the PCA (biplot), together with the coordinates of the production systems in the main axes of the ordination, allows one to observe if there are differences between the open-field and aeroponic production systems, determining which variables are relevant in explaining these differences and with which of the production systems they are associated. The analysis was carried out with the statistical programme Infostat, version 2020 (https://www.infostat.com.ar/index.php).

3. Results

3.1. Agronomic characteristics of the strawberry crop (Fragaria ananassa)

Regarding the producers of the strawberry crop using the open-field production system, the average area planted was 0.44 ha, the average number of strawberry seedlings was 29,934, and the average age of the crop at the date of the study was 24 months (Figure 2). Regarding fertilizers, 9 types are used among the respondents (Appendix 1), which are applied directly to the soil and by a drip system at an application rate of between 1 and 2 times per month (Table 1).

Table 1. Agronomic characteristics of strawberry cultivation (Fragaria ananassa) in the open-field production system in the Andes.

No. of Producers	Surface area (ha) (Average)	Quantity of seedlings (Average)	Crop cycle (months) (Average)	Fertilizers Used			No. of pesticide applications/month (Average)
				Type (N-P-K)	Quantity (kg) (Average)	Application method
12	0.45	29,934	21.60	00-00-60	31.23	Sprayed onto the soil Drip system	1.45
	0.22*	19,302*	6.23*	10-30-10	22.31*		0.54*
	0.80^+	64,000^+	24.00^+	15-15-15	50.80^+		2.00^+
	0.08^-	1,000^-	1.66^-	18-46-00	1.00^-		0.50^-
				12-61-00
				00-52-34
				15-00-00
				13-00-46
				09-45-11

Signs are as follows: (*) is standard deviation, (+) is maximum, and (−) is minimum.

Regarding strawberry cultivation in the aeroponic production system (Figure 3), the cultivated area is 0.5 ha, 59,553 seedlings are managed, and are 24 months old on average. For rooting, growth and production, two types of water-soluble fertilizers are used, the main characteristic that differs from the fertilizers used in the open-field production system (Table 1). Under the micro-spray systems, 83 kg/month of fertilizer and one application of pesticides are applied per month. (Table 2).

Table 2. Agronomic characteristics of strawberry cultivation (Fragaria ananassa) in the aeroponic production system in the Andes.

No. of interviewees	Surface area (ha)	Quantity of seedlings	Crop cycle (months)	Fertilizers Used			No of pesticide applications/month
				Type (K-P-K)	Quantity (Kg/month)	Application method
12	0.5	59,553	24	13-40-13	83	Micro-spraying	1
				30-10-10	83

3.2. Sustainability indicators for strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) cultivation using SAFA methodology

Of the four dimensions of sustainability, 20 of the 21 SAFA topics were analyzed for the two production systems. We found that in the open-field production system, 18 of the 21 (85.71%) topics evaluated were categorized as either moderate (66.66%) or limited (19.05%) (Table 3), while in the aeroponic production system, only 7 of the 21 (33.3%) topics evaluated were categorized as moderate (28.54%) or unacceptable (4.76%) (Table 3). In global terms, the open-field production system (2.43) is less sustainable than its aeroponic counterpart (3.52), with 1.09 performance points and the sustainability polygons distributed by dimension (Figure 4).

Table 3. Sustainability performance scores under the SAFA methodology (mean values with standard deviations in parentheses) in strawberry cultivation (Fragaria ananassa) in open-field and aeroponic production systems in the Ecuadorian Andes.

Dimension	Code	Topic	Average per topic		Average per dimension
			Open-field production	Aeroponic production	Open-field production	Aeroponic production
Good Governance	GG1	Corporate Ethics	2.46 (1.29)	2.46 (0.87)	2.29	2.08
	GG2	Accountability	1.51 (1.21)	0.49 (0.28)
	GG3	Participation	1.49 (1.13)	2.47 (0.72)
	GG4	Rule of Law	3.49 (0.94)	2.50 (0.95)
	GG5	Holistic Management	2.52 (0.97)	2.48 (0.88)
Environmental Integrity	EI1	Atmosphere	2.49 (1.03)	4.21 (0.55)	2.47	4.05
	EI2	Water	2.44 (0.56)	4.53 (0.33)
	EI3	Land	2.49 (0.98)	4.49 (0.36)
	EI4	Biodiversity	2.45 (1.06)	3.52 (0.53)
	EI5	Materials and Energy	2.49 (1.00)	3.52 (0.82)
Economic Resilience	ER1	Investment	2.52 (0.88)	3.50 (1.04)	2.23	3.24
	ER2	Vulnerability	2.45 (1.04)	2.51 (0.99)
	ER3	Product Quality and Information	2.48 (1.11)	4.47 (0.31)
	ER4	Local Economy	1.47 (1.10)	2.50 (0.99)
Well-being Social	SW1	Decent Livelihood	2.47 (0.96)	4.47 (0.31)	2.64	4.46
	SW2	Fair Trading Practices	2.50 (1.00)	4.48 (0.29)
	SW3	Labor Rights	2.46 (0.97)	4.46 (0.22)
	SW4	Equity	4.46 (0.44)	4.48 (0.33)
	SW5	Human Safety Health	1.48 (1.13)	4.46 (0.34)
	SW6	Cultural Diversity	2.45 (0.94)	4.45 (0.30)
				Average	2.43	3.52

Values between brackets are the Standard Deviations (SD).

3.2.1. Good governance dimension

The average performance values for good governance were as follows: the open-field system scored 2.29 and the aeroponic system scored 2.08. Of the 5 topics evaluated in the open-field system, participation is limited, whereas in the aeroponic system, accountability is unacceptable. Rule of law and holistic management scored values in the ‘best’ category for both production systems.

3.2.2. Environmental integrity dimension

The open-field system scored an average of 2.47 for the environmental integrity dimension, which was far below the aeroponic system’s average of 4.05. Of the five topics evaluated, ‘biodiversity and materials’ and ‘energy’ are limited in the open-field system, while in the aeroponic system the same two topics are moderate. Atmosphere, water, and land were the three topics with performance scores categorized as ‘best.’

3.2.3. Economic resilience dimension

The open-field system scored an average of 2.23 for the environmental integrity dimension, which again was well below the aeroponic system’s average of 4.24. Of the 4 topics evaluated, local economy is limited in the traditional system and in the aeroponic system, local economy and vulnerability are moderate.

3.2.4. Social well-being dimension

Once more, the aeroponic system triumphed over its open-field counterpart with 4.46 and 2.64, respectively. Of the 6 topics evaluated, human safety health is limited whereas equity is in the ‘best’ category in the open-field system, and in the aeroponic system, all topics have performance scores of ‘best.’

3.3. Sustainability scores

The first axis of the ordination (CP 1), which explains almost 50% of the variability between crops, separates aeroponics from the open field, indicating that there are crucial differences between both groups for these variables. To know which variables are more associated with which group, we can look at the biplot or the values of the eigenvectors (Figure 2).

The sustainability topics (atmosphere, water, land, product quality and information, decent livelihood, fair trading practices, labour rights, human health and safety, and cultural diversity) are marked in red to indicate that they are higher in the aeroponic production system, whereas the variables of accountability and rule of law are marked in black to indicate that they are higher in the open-field production system. In addition, the variables biodiversity, materials and energy, investment, vulnerability, and local economy have a weaker association with the aeroponic production system (eigenvectors between 0.1 and 0.17) and other variables do not differ between groups (values close to 0) (Table 4).

Table 4. Association of sustainability topics (variables) in strawberry cultivation (Fragaria ananassa) in open-field and aeroponic production systems.

Code	Variable (Sustainability topic)	Eigenvector
		Aeroponic production system	Open-field production system
GG1	Corporate Ethics	−0.001	0.37
GG2	Accountability	−0.15	0.20
GG3	Participation	0.13	−0.36
GG4	Rule of Law	−0.16	0.22
GG5	Holistic Management	−0.002	0.44
EI1	Atmosphere	0.24	−0.30
EI2	Water	0.29	−0.02
EI3	Land	0.28	−0.10
EI4	Biodiversity	0.17	0.05
EI5	Materials and Energy	0.14	−0.28
ER1	Investment	0.16	−0.04
ER2	Vulnerability	0.03	0.36
ER3	Product Quality and Information	0.27	0.22
ER4	Local Economy	0.14	0.07
SW1	Decent Livelihood	0.29	0.19
SW2	Fair Trading Practices	0.30	0.07
SW3	Labor Rights	0.30	0.09
SW4	Equity	0.01	0.02
SW5	Human Safety Health	0.44	0.17
SW6	Cultural Diversity	0.30	−0.04

4. Discussion

Regarding the agronomic characteristics of the strawberry production systems, the aeroponic system (Figure 3, Table 2) has a seedling production capacity of 49.73% more than the open field system (Figure 2, Table 1), which It is corroborated that aeroponics is an effective tool to improve agricultural production in terms of quality and quantity (Mohamed et al., 2022), also improves phenolic, flavonoid and antioxidant properties (Chandra et al., 2014). Strawberry production under open field systems (Figure 2), requires large amounts of fresh water to satisfy crop water and other agricultural operations, such as soil preparation and cultivation (Morillo et al., 2015), in addition, aeroponics can eliminate external environmental influences because it uses a closed growth chamber with controlled environmental conditions (Lakhiar et al., 2018). The use of micro-spraying in aeroponic systems (Table 2, Figure 3) provide greater humidification to the roots and at the same time improve the exposure of the roots to oxygen (Cai et al., 2023) and maintain hypergrowth under controlled conditions (Lakhiar et al., 2018; Mbiyu et al., 2012).

In relation to the evaluation of sustainability, in the dimension of good governance, considered as the process of decision-making and implementation (UNESCAP, 2009), the topic of accountability had limited and unacceptable scores in the open-field and aeroponic production systems (Table 3). The low scores relate to the inadequate management of the subtopics of holistic management, responsibility, and transparency (FAO, 2013a, 2014a). This result is contrary to the sustainability scores obtained in Amazonian production systems (Heredia-R, Falconí, et al., 2020b; Heredia-R et al., 2022) and in banana (Musa x paradisiaca L.) cultivation in El Oro province, Ecuador (Bonisoli et al., 2019). In the topic of participation, whose objective is to ensure that those involved participate in decision-making in the production process (Freeman et al., 2021), the highest score (moderate; 2.1–3) was for the aeroponic production system, with the open field production system scoring much lower (limited; 0.1–2). These scores relate to the management of the subtopics of stakeholder dialog, grievance procedures, and conflict resolution (FAO, 2014a), a similar scenario to that of small-scale eucalyptus pulp producers in Brazil, where participation and conflict resolution are still a distant goal (Kröger & Nylund, 2012). The scores contrast with strawberry production in Washington (USA), San Quintín (Mexico), and Huelva (Spain), where sustainability scores for participation improved when there was better management of the subtopics of stakeholder dialog, grievance procedures, and conflict resolution (Fischer-Daly, 2022), but they turned out to be good for strawberry growers in Israel, who got involved in decision-making on demonstration projects to promote the exchange of experiences (Moser et al., 2008). Regarding the rule of law topic, whose objective is the protection of individual and collective rights, equitable access, and legal security over the natural resources upon which production depends (Ehm, 2010), the sustainability score in the open-field production system is better than in its aeroponic counterpart (Figure 4; Table 3) due to the influence of the subtopics of legitimacy, remedy, restoration and prevention, civic responsibility, and resource appropriation, since traditional production might possess established norms at a local level.

The environmental integrity dimension consists of maintaining life-sustaining systems essential for human survival by minimizing negative environmental impacts and fostering positive impacts (FAO, 2014a), given that human activities are heading toward tipping points and are pushing biophysical boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009). In the aeroponic productive system, the sustainability scores were higher than in the open-field system in the topics of atmosphere, water, land, materials and energy, and biodiversity (Figures 4 and 5). It should be noted that in the open-field production system (Figure 2), there is an inadequate management of the following subtopics: greenhouse gases, air quality, water withdrawal, water quality, soil quality, land degradation, ecosystem diversity, species diversity, genetic diversity, material use, and energy usage, waste, reduction, and disposal (FAO, 2014b). This is in line with Lakhiar et al. (2018) in that the aeroponic system has shown some promising results in several countries and is recommended as the most efficient, useful, significant, economical, and convenient plant-growing system after soil and other soilless methods. It also consumes less water by 98%, fewer fertilizers by 60%, and fewer pesticides and herbicides by 100%. It maximizes plant yield by 45 to 75% in contrast to hydroponic or geoponic systems (Stoner & Schorr, 1983; Thakur et al., 2019; Tunio et al., 2020), because quality biomass is increased, the metabolism rate of plant growth is ten times higher in aeroponics (Lakhiar et al., 2018), in addition, the system offers lower inputs of water and energy per unit of cultivation area (Lester, 2014), but it has been identified that the grower needs a specific level of competence to operate this system and that it is costly to produce on a large scale (Lakhiar et al., 2018).

Figure 4. Comparison of the dimensions of good governance, environmental integrity, economic resilience, and social welfare in aeroponic and open-field strawberry production systems in the Andes of Ecuador according to the SAFA system

Figure 5. Principal components of the sustainability scores in the aeroponic (A: red) and traditional (T: black) production systems of strawberry cultivation in the Andes (the codes are the topics described in Table 4).

The dimension of economic resilience is directly related to meeting the needs of farming families (WCED, 1987) and indicates that production systems must be able to pay off all debts, generate a positive cash flow, compensate for any negative externalities they may generate, and adequately remunerate workers, families, or shareholders. In addition, it must have buffer mechanisms (savings and assets) to cope with changes and shocks beyond its control, for example economic recessions and adverse weather (FAO, 2014b). We have found that for strawberry production, the aeroponic system has higher sustainability scores than the open-field system (Table 3; Figure 4,). Supporting the concept of soilless culture seeks to offer an innovative solution to ensure sustainability environmental and economic benefits of food supplies with high nutritional quality (Sardare & Admane, 2013). For the latter, the local economy topic is categorized as ‘limited’ (Figure 4) and is determined by the subtopics of value creation and local procurement (FAO, 2014b); therefore, a greater microeconomic focus on the resilience of open-field production and the local community is important (FAO, 2014b).

The social well-being dimension relates to satisfying basic human needs and the provision of the right and freedom to fulfil one’s aspirations for a better life (WCED, 1987). In the food and agriculture sector, human rights translate into the right to adequate food (FAO, 2004), which links to sustainability. As aforementioned, sustainability scores in the aeroponic strawberry production system are better than in the open-field production system (Figure 4, 5). The human health and safety topic had the lowest sustainability score in open-field production (Table 4), which is related to a lower degree of physical, mental, and social well-being among workers in this system (FAO, 2014b). It is possibly derived from the poor management of the subtopics workplace safety and health provisions for employees, as well as public health, given that the abundant use of synthetic pesticides and artificial fertilizers existing in the open-field cultivation of strawberries pollutes and degrades the environment, poses risks to human health, and reduces the food’s nutritional value (Mahmood et al., 2016; Saxton, 2015; Sójka et al., 2015; Tittonell et al., 2016; UNCTAD, 2017).

4.1. Potential agri-food and agri-environmental policy implications aimed at educating people about sustainability in production systems

The identification of sustainability scores categorized as ‘unacceptable’ in open-field and aeroponic strawberry production (Table 5) allows one to prioritize multidimensional actions at a local level. One example is strengthening educational programmes for the sustainability of the evaluated systems, given that there is a commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which has been adopted as public policy and is reflected in the national development plans in Ecuador for 2017–2021 and 2021–2025 (PMA, 2022). Substantial progress has been made at a local level in SDGs 1 and 2, which seek to end poverty and hunger, and in SDG 17, which deals with ‘partnerships for the goals.’

Table 5. Recommendations for education regarding the sustainability of open-field and aeroponic strawberry production systems as a contribution to the SDG targets in the Andes of Ecuador.

Dimension	Topics rated ‘unacceptable’ (sustainability scores)	Potential solutions	Contribution to the 2030 Agenda	Examples
Good Governance	Accountability (1.51; 0.49*)	Promote responsible management strategies in terms of governance to improve performance with respect to the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability.	SDG 12, Goal 12.2 SDG 11, Goal 11.a	Hirwa et al. (2022), Osabohien et al. (2020)
	Participation (1.49)	Promote strategies for stakeholder participation in decision-making in the production process.	SDG 5 Goal 5.5 y 5.6a SDG 2 Goal 2.3	Anderson et al. (2021), Sell and Minot (2018)
Economic Resilience	Local Economy (1.47)	Encourage production, employment, procurement, marketing, and infrastructure investments in productive systems to contribute to the creation of sustainable local value.	SDG 8 Goal 8.2; 8.4 SDG 11 Goal 11.7.a SDG 12 Goal 12.7; 12.8.a SDG 15 Goal 15.4; 15.6; 15.9.a;	Sgroi (2022a), Sgroi and Sciancalepore (2022), Sgroi (2022b), Arauz et al. (2022), Cango et al. (2023)
Social Well-being	Human Health and Safety (1.48)	To generate a safe, hygienic, and healthy work environment that meets human needs.	SDG 12 Goal 12.4	Miller et al. (2020), Jacquet et al. (2022)

* ‘Unacceptable’ sustainability score in the aeroponic system

The resulting sustainability assessment of the open-field and aeroponic strawberry production systems in the Ecuadorian Andes presents sustainability scores that are concerning. Thus, the following recommendations are considered of high priority, with a view to consolidating sustainable food systems for decision-makers (Table 5) as a contribution towards the achievement of the SDG targets.

It is essential to plan responsible management strategies in terms of governance to improve performance with respect to the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability (Hirwa et al., 2022); since the existence of a direct correlation between the governance dimension and its influence on the other dimensions in traditional agroforestry systems in the Amazon has been verified (Heredia-R et al., 2022). In addition, when participatory processes support the decision system, farmers and stakeholders are involved (Carberry et al., 2002); generally obtain positive results aligned to all the interested parties of the production system (Nelson et al., 2002) and it is known that the creation of value added in low carbon agriculture can reduce carbon emissions and help achieve the Paris agreement (Wang et al., 2020) and improve the economic resilience of production systems (Sgroi, 2022a; Sgroi & Sciancalepore, 2022). In addition, it is important to emphasize that work accidents cause physical, psychological and social damage and, in turn, can lead to worsening of the worker's finances, his company and his family. Preventing or reducing the number of accidents and minimizing their consequences are among the main health and safety objectives in companies as a contribution to the 2030 agenda, so it is important to create a safe, hygienic and healthy work environment that meets the human needs (Jacquet et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2020).

5. Conclusions

The aeroponic system has a higher seedling production capacity than the open field system, considering that it improves agricultural production in terms of quality and quantity, strawberry production under open field systems requires large amounts of fresh water to satisfy the water of cultivation and other agricultural operations, such as soil preparation and cultivation, but the use of micro-sprinklers in aeroponic systems facilitates the wetting of the roots and at the same time improves the exposure of the roots to oxygen.

The social, environmental, economic, and governance dimensions were categorized as ‘moderate’ in the open-field production system, while in the aeroponic production system, the social dimension and environmental dimension were ‘best,’ the economic dimension was ‘good,’ and the good governance dimension was ‘moderate.’

Regarding the variability of the sustainability scores, there are major differences between the production systems under study. The topics of accountability and rule of law within the good governance dimension in open-field production had higher sustainability scores than those relating to the aeroponic system, influenced by the subtopics of holistic management, responsibility, transparency, legitimacy, remedy, restoration and prevention, civic responsibility, and resource appropriation. It was identified that the aeroponic system is more sustainable than the open-field system; these findings could be a contribution to the 1) 2023–2027 strategic development plan, 2) nationally determined contribution (NDC), and 3) central objective of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2°C.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, methodology and software, J.C. and M.H-R.; formal analysis, M.H-R. and L,P; investigation, J.C., B.V.H and E.T; resources, J.C.; data curation, E.T., M.H-R., A.V-L; writing—original draft preparation, J.C., M.H-R., L.P; writing—review and editing, M.H-R., B.T., C.G.DA.; supervision, B.T. and C.G.DA; project administration, J.C.; funding acquisition, J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the strawberry producers who collaborated in this investigation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This research has been financed by the project ‘Alternative and sustainable measures against climate change for the production of strawberry crops using the aeroponic system’ carried out at the Research Center of the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador Ibarra headquarters.

Appendix 1.

Agronomic characteristics of strawberry cultivation (Fragaria ananassa) in the open-field production system in the Andes

Table

No. of Producers	Surface area (ha)	Quantity of seedlings	Crop cycle (months)	Fertilizers Used			No. of pesticide applications/month
				Type (N-P-K)	Quantity (kg)	Application method
1	0.50	40000	24	18-46-00	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil	1
				15-15-15	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
				10-30-10	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
2	0.50	40000	24	18-46-00	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil	2
				15-15-15	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
				10-30-10	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
3	0.25	22000	24	00-52-34	3.00	Drip system	1
				13-00-46
				09-45-11	3.00	Drip system
					1.00	Drip system
				12-61-00	1.00	Drip system
4	0.08	1000	18	00-52-34	3.00	Drip system	2
				15-00-00	1.00	Drip system
5	0.50	20000	24	15-15-15	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil	1
				18-46-00	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
				00-00-60	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
6	0.50	20000	24	18-46-00	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil	1
				15-15-15	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
				10-30-10	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
				13-00-46	1.00	Drip system
7	0.40	16000	24	15-15-15	45.00	Sprayed onto the soil	2
				10-30-10	45.00	Sprayed onto the soil
				18-46-00	45.00	Sprayed onto the soil
8	0.80	64000	24	15-15-15	3.00	Drip system	2
				18-46-00
				15-00-00	3.00	Drip system
					3.00	Drip system
9	0.25	20000	24	15-15-15	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil	1
				18-46-00	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
				00-00-60	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
10	0.25	20000	24	15-15-15	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil	1
				18-46-00	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
				00-00-60	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
11	0.50	25000	24	18-46-00	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil	2
				15-15-15	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
				10-30-10	50.80	Sprayed onto the soil
12	0.70	55000	24	18-46-00	3.00	Drip system	2
				15-15-15	3.00	Drip system
				10-30-10	3.00	Drip system
				13-00-46	3.00	Drip system
				00-00-60	1.00	Drip system