Search

• Raffia and mulching film hamper the direct reuse or plant residues in horticulture. • As a result, contaminated plant residues are often landfilled or incinerated. • We assess the use of biodegradable and compostable alternatives. • These alternatives are more expensive than conventional options. • They have a lower carbon footprint when conventional plastic waste is incinerated. Plastics and other materials commonly used in horticulture for plant support (e.g. raffia) and soil protection (e.g. mulching film) pose a challenge to achieving a circular economy. These materials contaminate plant residues, hampering their direct reuse due to the need for separation and cleaning. As a result, contaminated plant residues is often landfilled or incinerated. This study investigates the replacement of conventional plastic raffia and mulching film with biodegradable and compostable alternatives. Polypropylene raffia is compared with a biodegradable viscose polymer and compostable jute fibre, while polyethylene mulching film is compared with a biodegradable polylactic acid film. Conventional and novel alternatives are compared economically using Life-Cycle Costing and environmentally using Life-Cycle Assessment. The economic assessment is based on case studies with two horticultural companies in Almeria (south-eastern Spain), while the environmental analysis uses data from the Ecoinvent database. The use of biodegradable and compostable alternatives for raffia and mulching film proved to be 49% more expensive than conventional options. However, when conventional plastic waste is incinerated rather than landfilled, biodegradable and compostable alternatives have a lower carbon footprint. Although biodegradable and compostable options can be more expensive and have higher impacts in certain situations, proper waste management can lead to environmental benefits. With optimisation and incentives, these alternative options support the transition of horticulture to a sustainable circular economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]