energies

Article
Energy Efficiency Strategies for Ecological
Greenhouses: Experiences from Murcia (Spain)
Hilario Becerril 1, * and Ignacio de los Rios 2
1 Area de Ciencias Sociales. Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Tabasco, México. Periferico Carlos A.
Molina S/N, Cardenas 86500, Tabasco, Mexico
2 Agroforestry Engineering Department, School of Agricultural, Food and Biosystems Engineering,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Av. Puerta de Hierro No. 2 CP, Madrid 28040, Spain;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +52-937-3722386

Academic Editor: Istudor Nicolae

Received: 2 August 2016; Accepted: 18 October 2016; Published: 25 October 2016

Abstract: There has been a continuous growth in ecological agriculture (EA) in recent years. It is
recognized as a production system with rational energy use and low demand for fossil fuels. There are
many studies relating to this subject, in contrast to the few studies regarding the use of energy and its
impact on the environment in ecological greenhouses. This article analyzes the strategies adopted by
a Transformational Agricultural Society (Sociedad Agraria de Transformación) in order to improve
energy efficiency in ecological greenhouses, with regards to the use of fossil fuels. The methodology
is based on the Working With People (WWP) Model, which involves social learning processes over
30 years in one of the largest regions of ecological crops in Spain. The results show that the measures
taken to manage the greenhouses have achieved a decrease of over 80% in terms of fossil fuel
consumption. The experience demonstrates that EA, as opposed to conventional agriculture (CA), is
a system with great potential when it comes to reducing energy consumption and environmental
improvements through various strategies.

Keywords: Transformational Agricultural Society; ecological agriculture (EA); conventional

agriculture (CA); greenhouses; fossil fuels; renewable energy

1. Introduction
In the overall European context of setting the economy on a sustainable growth path, businesses
and rural communities must adapt their systems to find alternatives to our fossil-based economies.
This can be achieved by unlocking the potentials of the bio-resources available in the different bio
economy and blue-economy sectors, in a sustainable way that is accepted by the citizens. At the
same time, Europe must continue to address resource efficiency in light of the increasing pressure
on global food systems to meet demand from population and income growth. Society has to turn
these challenges into real actions, bringing together the nexus among the primary sector, nutrition and
health, and the nexus among food, water and energy [1]. Many of the challenges are of a global nature,
requiring global solutions, working with people in cooperation with different partners. Innovative
approaches to knowledge exchange such as those foreseen in the European Innovation Partnership
“Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability” are of utmost importance to foster the implementation
of solutions.
The Political Guidelines for the next European Commission for the 2016–2017 [2] programming
period focus on resilient value chains for food and bio-based products, better managing possible future
shortages in food and energy, fostering rural innovation with broad societal engagement. In addition,

Energies 2016, 9, 866; doi:10.3390/en9110866 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2016, 9, 866 2 of 23

cross-cutting issues such as soil management and energy use efficiency will be taken into account in
the EU policies.
Various studies highlight the energy problem within food systems. Firstly, energy is a basic
consumable which is used more and more [3] in the production, processing and manufacture of food,
with a heavy dependency on fossil fuels [4]. The use of these fuels in modern food production systems
continues to increase at an international level [5] leading to a growing number of environmental and
social impacts [6]. These production systems rely heavily on fossil fuels, contributing to an annual
increase in greenhouse gases (GHG) [7] and the increased use of non-renewable energy [8]. As stated by
Fischer et al. [9], energy usage increases with the intensification of agriculture, caused by anthropogenic
pressures and the increasing demand for food [10]. Studies carried out by the European Union show
that the energy consumed in agricultural production increased between 1989 and 2009, reflecting a lack
of efficiency in terms of energy usage [11]. In addition, international policies highlight the use of energy
in food systems as a food security problem [12]. Despite this, the efforts of those organizations which
are responsible for meeting food demand at a global level [13] have been accompanied by an increase
in the production of basic products, primarily in terms of medium scale agricultural exploitation.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) [14], it is estimated
that 80% of this increase in agricultural production will be as a result of intensified production systems.
In addition, new agricultural technologies have emerged which combine increased production with
improved environmental protection.
Food production systems and the limitations of energy resources represent a complex dichotomy:
ecological agriculture (EA) seems to be an option, with continuous growth at an international level [15]
offering different consumables to those used in conventional agriculture (CA). Some studies show
an increase in energy efficiency within ecological production [16] as a result of using consumables with
low non-renewable energy consumption, in response to the restrictions and increases in prices of basic
fuels [17]. On the other hand, other studies show significant differences with regards to the efficient
use of energy between ecological production and CA [18]. Sustainable agriculture uses energy from
fossil fuels in a more efficient way than agricultural production systems; greater energy efficiency in
crop rotation under organic management was attributed to the fact that the forage component was less
sensitive to chemical input removal than grain crops [19]. Different studies consider that energy use
can be reduced by up to 50% in organic crops compared to traditional ones [20,21]. Greater energy
efficiency has been observed with organic crops due to the elimination of chemical inputs and changes
to agricultural tasks [6]. However, the growth of the ecological production system is a result of
market demand for healthy foods, with consumers and producers being aware of the need for a less
contaminated environment, and less use of fossil fuels and more efficient use of energy [22].
Energy efficiency involves a reduction in the quantity of energy required to produce various food
products [23]. In 2006, a study coordinated by Cornell University on the “impacts of organic farming
on the efficiency of energy use in agriculture” [24], showed that organic farming systems significantly
reduce the fossil energy inputs in production and also improve several aspects of agriculture’s
environmental performance compared with conventional farming systems. The findings of this
study were: improved fossil fuel inputs (30% reduction) compared to conventional production, no use
of commercial nitrogen or pesticides in organic systems, less soil erosion, improved water resources and
increased organic material in the organic system (up to 50%), greater acquisition of solar energy, and
less requirement for fossil fuel (up to 50%). Following the review of information from approximately
50 studies, Belloti [25] states that the majority of organic production systems are more energy efficient
than their conventional equivalents. An alternative that has been developed is the application of
conservation or regeneration agriculture methods [25–27]. Certain studies have shown that using
these methods can ensure an efficient use of energy [28], helping to regenerate the soil and increasing
organic material, improving its fertility and crop productivity [29].
Food production requires new low-consumption energy technologies [30]. In order to adopt
these energy innovations, technological changes are required, along with a change of vision amongst
Energies 2016, 9, 866 3 of 23

the receivers to facilitate the implementation of new practices that are more energy efficient [31].
The farmers who have adopted these practices in the most energy efficient way (conservation work,
Energies 2016, 9, 866  3 of 22 
and reducing fuel use) have a mentality and experience which allows them to tackle challenges and
unforeseen changes in their surroundings [32,33], which contributes to the promotion of innovation 
unforeseen changes in their surroundings [32,33], which contributes to the promotion of innovation and
and  sustainable 
sustainable development 
development [34,35]. [34,35].  These  experiences 
These experiences amongst 
amongst farmers farmers 
with with 
a vision a  vision  for 
for sustainability
sustainability apply innovative agricultural practices in order to preserve natural resources, finding 
apply innovative agricultural practices in order to preserve natural resources, finding synergies
synergies between natural, socioeconomic and energy flow systems [36]. Figure 1 shows the group 
between natural, socioeconomic and energy flow systems [36]. Figure 1 shows the group of farmers’
of farmers’ evolution since the 1970s up to the present day. The experience and learning both within 
evolution since the 1970s up to the present day. The experience and learning both within and outside
and outside of their field of work (such as their IPMA project management certification and forming 
of their field of work (such as their IPMA project management certification and forming part of
part of the European “Food for Life” Platform) has enabled them to create strategies to move away 
the European “Food for Life” Platform) has enabled them to create strategies to move away from
from traditional methods towards innovative activity with a sustainable vision. The farmers’ industry 
traditional methods towards innovative activity with a sustainable vision. The farmers’ industry
experience over the last 30 years has led to energy savings and a more efficient use of the natural 
experience over the last 30 years has led to energy savings and a more efficient use of the natural
resources available to them in their production activity [37]. 
resources available to them in their production activity [37].

 
Figure 1. Important milestones in the evolution of the Organic Cooperative. Source: [38].
Figure 1. Important milestones in the evolution of the Organic Cooperative.  Source: [38].  

The  reason  behind  farmers’  tendency  towards  more  sustainable  production  models,  with 
The reason behind farmers’ tendency towards more sustainable production models, with regards
regards  to  energy  consumption,  is  the  impact  it  has  on  the  profitability  of  farming  activity  [39]. 
to energy consumption, is the impact it has on the profitability of farming activity [39]. Innovation in
Innovation  in  conservation  agriculture  practices  facilitates  an  efficient  use  of  fuels,  in  the  face  of 
conservation agriculture practices facilitates an efficient use of fuels, in the face of reduced availability
reduced availability of “cheap” fossil fuels [40] (increase in the price of fuels). Some studies show the 
of “cheap” fossil fuels [40] (increase in the price of fuels). Some studies show the importance of
importance  of  farmers  understanding  the  comprehensive  use  of  fossil  fuels  [41]  in  production 
farmers understanding the comprehensive use of fossil fuels [41] in production systems, due to the
systems, due to the fact that each type of crop creates different energy needs [42]. This local, proven 
fact that each type of crop creates different energy needs [42]. This local, proven experience [43]
experience  [43]  amongst  farmers  with  regards  to  the  use  of  fossil  fuels  makes  innovations  and 
amongst farmers with regards to the use of fossil fuels makes innovations and strategies for reducing
strategies for reducing energy resources in different agricultural scenarios more feasible [20]. The use 
energy resources in different agricultural scenarios more feasible [20]. The use of farming machinery is
of farming machinery is indispensable in agricultural work. However, it is possible to reduce its use 
indispensable in agricultural work. However, it is possible to reduce its use and reduce the cost of
and reduce the cost of fossil fuels [20,40]. In certain studies, it is evident that organic producers are 
fossil fuels [20,40]. In certain studies, it is evident that organic producers are shown to make more
shown to make more efficient use of energy by applying sustainable production methods [44], with 
efficient use of energy by applying sustainable production methods [44], with production relying
production relying on finite energy consumables. In these ecological systems, the use of fossil fuels 
on finite energy consumables. In these ecological systems, the use of fossil fuels is substituted by
is  substituted  by  a  greater  use  of  human  energy,  resulting  in  a  greater  diversity  of  tasks  [23]. 
a greater use of human energy, resulting in a greater diversity of tasks [23]. Conversion to organic
Conversion  to  organic  farming  systems  will  reduce  farmers’  dependence  on  energy;  and  Organic 
farming systems will reduce farmers’ dependence on energy; and Organic farming can increase the
farming can increase the efficiency of energy use per unit of production [24]. This change is accepted 
efficiency of energy use per unit of production [24]. This change is accepted by many farmers requiring
by many farmers requiring greater specialization (Figure 2).As stated by Wood et al. [26], the practice 
greater specialization (Figure 2).As stated by Wood et al. [26], the practice of EA reduces the use of
of EA reduces the use of energy involved in the production of food, stimulating the metabolism of 
energy involved in the production of food, stimulating the metabolism of the soil, water and wind
the soil, water and wind system (the elimination of chemical products, incorporation of crop remains 
and livestock activity within the soil, increases organic matter, reduces soil, water contamination and 
reduces greenhouse gas emissions). As well as reducing energy usage, EA also improves the soil’s 
fertility, which contributes to an improvement in the surrounding environment [45]. The integration of 
organized  groups  facilitates  social  learning  for  innovation  based  on  various  strategies  for  the 
sustainability  and  implementation  of  conservation  tasks  in  EA  [43,46–50].  These  social  learning 
Energies 2016, 9, 866 4 of 23

system (the elimination of chemical products, incorporation of crop remains and livestock activity
within the soil, increases organic matter, reduces soil, water contamination and reduces greenhouse gas
emissions). As well as reducing energy usage, EA also improves the soil’s fertility, which contributes to
an improvement in the surrounding environment [45]. The integration of organized groups facilitates
social learning for innovation based on various strategies for the sustainability and implementation
Energies 2016, 9, 866 
of
4 of 22 
conservation tasks in EA [43,46–50]. These social learning processes have led to a change in mentality
amongst farmers with a sustainability vision [46,51,52], favoring feedback and creating knowledge
processes have led to a change in mentality amongst farmers with a sustainability vision [46,51,52], 
amongst the organized groups’ participants.
favoring feedback and creating knowledge amongst the organized groups’ participants. 

 
Figure 2. Complementary use of heating system and specialization of farmers. 
Figure 2. Complementary use of heating system and specialization of farmers.

In  Spain,  in  the  Murcia  region,  social  learning  processes  amongst  ecological  farmers  with 
In Spain, in the Murcia region, social learning processes amongst ecological farmers with
greenhouses  are  of  particular  note  [46,48,53].  This  ecological  production  in  greenhouses  is  also 
greenhouses are of particular note [46,48,53]. This ecological production in greenhouses is also
regulated by various rules at an international level [54–56], although there is not enough information 
regulated by various rules at an international level [54–56], although there is not enough information
regarding the environmental impacts and the efficient use of energy [57,58]. 
regarding the environmental impacts and the efficient use of energy [57,58].
It is well known that fruit and vegetable production in greenhouses is one of the systems that 
It is well known that fruit and vegetable production in greenhouses is one of the systems that
consumes  the  most  energy  in  the  agricultural  sector,  with  production  increasing  based  on  energy 
consumes the most energy in the agricultural sector, with production increasing based on energy
inputs [58]. The basic point of the greenhouse is to understand the quantity of energy that is required 
inputs [58]. The basic point of the greenhouse is to understand the quantity of energy that is required
in order to meet the caloric needs of each of the crops. The high costs and availability of energy [59], 
in order to meet the caloric needs of each of the crops. The high costs and availability of energy [59],
restrict the use of heating [60], making it more important for farmers to make efficient use of energy 
restrict the use of heating [60], making it more important for farmers to make efficient use of energy
in the greenhouses. It is because of this that the comprehensive operation of this production system 
in the greenhouses. It is because of this that the comprehensive operation of this production system
requires skilled personnel [61] in order to make efficient use of the consumables used. The training 
requires skilled personnel [61] in order to make efficient use of the consumables used. The training of
of greenhouse operatives is fundamental, especially with regards to their knowledge on crops’ energy 
greenhouse operatives is fundamental, especially with regards to their knowledge on crops’ energy
requirements and managing ecological greenhouses. In addition, Sun [62] mentions that the adequate 
requirements and managing ecological greenhouses. In addition, Sun [62] mentions that the adequate
design of the greenhouse (the material used, type of netting, color and thickness), the lighting, water 
design of the greenhouse (the material used, type of netting, color and thickness), the lighting, water
circulation systems, solar energy storage and use as geothermal energy all influence energy efficiency 
circulation systems, solar energy storage and use as geothermal energy all influence energy efficiency
and  can  make  the  system  more  profitable.  The  management  of  lighting  is  another  key  factor  for 
and can make the system more profitable. The management of lighting is another key factor for
making efficient use of energy in greenhouses, with light emitting diode (LED) technology enabling 
making efficient use of energy in greenhouses, with light emitting diode (LED) technology enabling
a significant reduction in energy [63]. 
a significant reduction in energy [63].
Some greenhouse farmers have been able to increase the profitability of the system as a result of 
Some greenhouse farmers have been able to increase the profitability of the system as a result
more  efficient  energy  usage  [64].  This  increased  profitability  from  greenhouses  has  not  only  been 
of more efficient energy usage [64]. This increased profitability from greenhouses has not only been
achieved  through  the  use  of  fossil  fuels,  but  also  through  other  renewable  energies,  such  as  solar 
achieved through the use of fossil fuels, but also through other renewable energies, such as solar
energy from mobile panels (Figure 3) [65]. 
energy from mobile panels (Figure 3) [65].
This type of system, the option of using renewable energy enables a reduction in the use of fossil
fuels and improves farmers’ incomes [65]. Other strategic decisions for transitioning from conventional
systems [66] to innovative systems have focused on the use of farming and forestry waste as sources of
bioenergy [67,68].
Based on a vision of modernizing agriculture for sustainability, this article analyzes the dynamics
of an Agricultural Society through a social learning process of 25 years of experience with EA and the
requires skilled personnel [61] in order to make efficient use of the consumables used. The training 
of greenhouse operatives is fundamental, especially with regards to their knowledge on crops’ energy 
requirements and managing ecological greenhouses. In addition, Sun [62] mentions that the adequate 
design of the greenhouse (the material used, type of netting, color and thickness), the lighting, water 
circulation systems, solar energy storage and use as geothermal energy all influence energy efficiency 
Energies 2016, 9, 866 5 of 23
and  can  make  the  system  more  profitable.  The  management  of  lighting  is  another  key  factor  for 
making efficient use of energy in greenhouses, with light emitting diode (LED) technology enabling 
efficient use of energy and finite resources [1]. The importance of the study is to show how organic
a significant reduction in energy [63]. 
farming can reduce and rationalize the use of fossil fuels in the ecological system. The article focuses
Some greenhouse farmers have been able to increase the profitability of the system as a result of 
on theefficient 
more  use of fossil fuels
energy  in the
usage  operation
[64].  of ecological
This  increased  greenhouses
profitability  in the Regionhas 
from  greenhouses  of Murcia,
not  only Spain.
been 
The analysis is carried out through several dimensions, political-contextual, technical-entrepreneurial
achieved  through  the  use  of  fossil  fuels,  but  also  through  other  renewable  energies,  such  as  solar 
and ethical-social, which impact the sustainable management of these non-renewable resources [47,49].
energy from mobile panels (Figure 3) [65]. 

 
Figure 3. Greenhouse with mobile panels [65]. 
Figure 3. Greenhouse with mobile panels [65].

The article is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methodology used for carrying out
the work as part of the European Rethink Project. Section 3 presents the results and a discussion of
these, demonstrating the strategies implemented by an organic cooperative with more than 30 years of
experience in Spain. The results are divided into three subsections based on the WWP methodology
used. Finally, Section 4 presents a conclusion, limitations and some recommendations.

2. Methodological and Conceptual Framework for the Analysis

2.1. RETHINK Organic Production in Spain: Cooperate to Innovate

One Organic Cooperative in Spain was selected as a success story highlighted by the FP7 research
(RETHINK project) in the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme [69]. In this research
project, alternative trajectories of agricultural modernization and rural resilience are explored based
on case studies in 14 countries [70]. The key research question asked is how actors are connecting
economic, social and environmental systems in different strategies for modernizing and improving
prosperity and energy efficiency. RETHINK is a transdisciplinary research, under the “multi-actor
approach” concept, which is necessary to engage farmers in highlighting innovative and successful
connections between farms and other stakeholders.
The conceptual and analytical frameworks applied in the case studies and analysis build
on the results obtained in a large number of EU-funded research projects which emphasized the
multifunctionality of rural areas [71,72], biological diversity [73], rural economy [72,74], social capital
and innovation processes in rural development [49,75].
The Organic Cooperative in Spain, RETHINK case study, focuses on analyzing the evolution of
a social learning process amongst farmers with over 40 years’ experience in the agricultural sector
(production, transformation and commercialization of fruit and vegetable organic and biodynamic
crops, both open-air and in greenhouses) and taking advantage of the region’s ideal climatic conditions.
The current mission of this Organic Cooperative (Camposeven) is “promoting the health of people
developing organic product lines through the use of sustainable techniques” [38].
This Organic Cooperative has the following characteristics. (1) It has vast experience accumulated
over many years. (2) It promotes social learning processes amongst organic producers, companies,
Energies 2016, 9, 866 6 of 23

research bodies and local and regional governments; it also encourages a favorable environment
where farming partners make decisions together and benefit from different ways of learning (training,
informal meetings, experiments on their own farms). (3) It is considered as a successful case study
for the transformation of ecological products with an associative nature and socioeconomic purpose.
(4) It has an innovative energy efficiency strategy which has won several prizes (including the 2007
Thanit Prize for Development and Technological Innovation). (5) By stimulating the farmers involved
to exchange knowledge, and by upholding strong partnerships with universities and research groups,
knowledge can be created, shared, and used efficiently. The idea behind this approach is that it
strengthens the ability of small farmers to adapt to challenges and opportunities through networking
and joint learning [69]. (6) It has a highly energy efficient greenhouse production system, which has
enabled a reduction in the use of fossil fuels (over 80% in the last 10 years).
The Camposeven Organic Cooperative is situated in one of the regions of Spain with the
largest proportion of EA, in the Community of Campo de Cartagena; it covers 1163 km2 and has
a total population of 358,927 inhabitants. In this area, the food industry has a long agricultural
tradition. However, in the Mediterranean region, this sector represents a profound environmental,
social and economic problem due to the existing conditions, which are restrictive for agriculture,
such as a dry climate with a serious lack of water. Using just 3% of Spain’s water resources and
channeling investment towards an improved water supply system and treatment has enabled the
region to evolve and exceed the Spanish average. However, the strong presence of tourism in the area
puts significant pressure on natural resources and land prices, affecting farming’s ability to survive.
Murcia’s economic dynamics are largely driven by the farming sector, the food industry is one of
the key development forces and one of the main pillars which contributes the most to GDP and
regional equilibrium. Murcia is the Autonomous Community with the largest area dedicated to EA
in Spain [45] with an area of 58,820 hectares (10% of the regional agricultural area and 3.7% of the
national agricultural area). According to the latest official figures from 2015, the area being studied
covers 95% (205.68 has) of the 216 hectares of ecologically certified greenhouses in Spain. The study
has obtained direct information from over 30% (65.00 hectares) of ecologically certified greenhouses
in Spain [76]. This information, which has been obtained from 30% of existing greenhouses, can be
considered statistically [77] representative of the entire Murcia Region due to the similar environmental
conditions and systems used in ecological greenhouses [38,53].
Due to its physiographic characteristics (Figure 4), the region of Murcia faces a critical dilemma
with regards to creating agricultural food products, with its problems with the lack of water to maintain
productivity and energy use prompting it to make efficient use of the natural resources it has available.
The objective of the region’s producers is both to make the most of the limited water as well as fuels
in order to generate enough energy to distribute sufficient water resources. As a result, they have
opted to modernize the irrigation lands by moving towards automated irrigation systems in improved
production structures with land consolidation processes.
The direct consequences for the farmer are improvements in working conditions, more time
available, and improved financial results. The correct design and subsequent use of the installations
provides a water release with environmental aims, and in particular contributes to a reduction in the
over-exploitation of aquifers due to water savings and energy savings as a result of not requiring as
much pumps.
 with  regards  to  creating  agricultural  food  products,  with  its  problems  with  the  lack  of  water  to 
maintain productivity and energy use prompting it to make efficient use of the natural resources it 
has available. The objective of the region’s producers is both to make the most of the limited water as 
well as fuels in order to generate enough energy to distribute sufficient water resources. As a result, 
they have opted to modernize the irrigation lands by moving towards automated irrigation systems 
Energies 2016, 9, 866 7 of 23
in improved production structures with land consolidation processes. 

Spain

Murcia

Energies 2016, 9, 866  7 of 22 

San Pedro
The  direct  consequences  for  the  farmer  are  improvements  in  working  conditions,  deltime 
more 
available, and improved financial results. The correct design and subsequent use of the installations 
Pinatar
provides a water release with environmental aims, and in particular contributes to a reduction in the 
over‐exploitation of aquifers due to water savings and energy savings as a result of not requiring as 
much pumps. 

2.2. Materials and Methods   
In order to collect information and systemize the analysis, a common methodological framework 
Figure 4. Location of the case study.
Figure 4. Location of the case study. 
was designed by a panel of experts made up of 38 researchers from 14 countries in the EU, within the 
European Rethink project [1]. This common methodological framework was based on an analysis of 
the strategies for managing finite resources through the WWP model [49]. This proposal goes beyond 
2.2. Materials and Methods
the traditional technical‐economic vision and aims to analyze the behaviors of the parties involved 
In order toand  the  contexts 
collect in  which  they 
information andoperate.  The  WWP methodological framework 
systemize the analysis, a commonincorporates  methodologicalsocial  framework
learning  processes  for  analyzing  and  building  strategies  for  rural  prosperity  and  sustainable 
was designed by a panel of experts made up of 38 researchers from 14 countries in the EU, within the
management based on three dimensions, as shown in Figure 5 [46]. 
European Rethink The  project [1]. This
ethical‐social  common
dimension  methodological
considers  framework
the  strategies  adopted  wasto based
with  regards  on an analysis of
improving 
knowledge, behavior, attitudes and values amongst the people involved throughout the production, 
the strategies for managing finite resources through the WWP model [49]. This proposal goes beyond
transformation and commercialization processes. The technical‐entrepreneurial dimension includes 
the traditional technical-economic vision and aims to analyze the behaviors of the parties involved and
the strategies that have been adopted to create ecological products, based on quality standards, with 
energy and resource efficient technology and processes. The political‐contextual dimension enables 
the contexts in which they operate. The WWP methodological framework incorporates social learning
organizations to adapt their strategies and projects to the contexts in which they operate, in order to 
processes for analyzing and building strategies
achieve  success from sustainable and  formanagement. 
efficient  rural prosperity and sustainable
Lastly,  social learning  management based
is  the  unifying 
dimension 
on three dimensions, as[78] 
shownlinking 
inthe  discoveries 
Figure from  the  three  dimensions  that  influence  the  Organic 
5 [46].
Cooperative’s management. 

 
Figure 5. Dimensions of the Working With People (WWP) Model [49]. 
Figure 5. Dimensions of the Working With People (WWP) Model [49].
Based on this common methodological framework, the results of the study incorporate various 
tools  and  sources  of  information.  On  the  one  hand,  a  summary  and  review  of  various  secondary 
The ethical-social dimension considers the strategies adopted with regards to improving
sources (scientific literature and historic information from the Organic Cooperative) regarding the 
previous concepts and projects carried out by the cooperative. 
knowledge, behavior, attitudes and values amongst the people involved throughout the production,
On  the  other  hand,  as  the  main  source  of  information,  the  research  incorporates  empirical 
transformationinformation obtained through a social learning process with key stakeholders: the timescale covers a 
and commercialization processes. The technical-entrepreneurial dimension includes
learning process of 30 years of experience and knowledge in the ecological greenhouses sector in the 
region with the most acreage dedicated to organic farming in Spain. 
Energies 2016, 9, 866 8 of 23

the strategies that have been adopted to create ecological products, based on quality standards,
with energy and resource efficient technology and processes. The political-contextual dimension
enables organizations to adapt their strategies and projects to the contexts in which they operate, in
order to achieve success from sustainable and efficient management. Lastly, social learning is the
unifying dimension [78] linking the discoveries from the three dimensions that influence the Organic
Cooperative’s management.
Based on this common methodological framework, the results of the study incorporate various
tools and sources of information. On the one hand, a summary and review of various secondary
sources (scientific literature and historic information from the Organic Cooperative) regarding the
previous concepts and projects carried out by the cooperative.
On the other hand, as the main source of information, the research incorporates empirical
information obtained through a social learning process with key stakeholders: the timescale covers
a learning process of 30 years of experience and knowledge in the ecological greenhouses sector in the
region with the most acreage dedicated to organic farming in Spain.
The Figure 1 shows the major milestones that have influenced changes and adaptations of the
Camposeven Organic Cooperative. This temporary bonding process between farmers and the interplay
between external producers and agents, has involved a social learning process for joint planning and
development of common strategies among the private sector, civil society institutions and R + D + i [49].
In order to collect and systemize the proven expert knowledge, two complementary participative
processes were used: (1) direct interviews with parties involved in the Organic Cooperative’s activity;
and (2) Workshop-Focus Group (Agri-Food Platform). The scope of these participatory processes, over
the years, is summarized in the following sections: (a) for the in-depth direct interviews, a questionnaire
was designed based on the European Rethink project’s methodological framework. The questionnaires
included four sections with questions linked to the different dimensions of sustainable management
and rural prosperity: the first section was aimed at understanding the vision of those interviewed
with regards to sustainable management and rural prosperity; a second block with questions about the
strategies adopted in relation to the ethical-social dimension; a third block regarding the strategies
linked to the technical-entrepreneurial dimension, with questions about production, transformation
and use of resources, as well as energy management; and, a final section, regarding the strategies
linked to the political-contextual dimension, with questions aimed at analyzing the relationship
between the agricultural organization and its environmental, socioeconomic and political context.
The fieldwork was carried out between March and December 2015 by the project’s research team.
A total of 42 in-depth interviews took place, representing 100% of the key actors involved in the organic
cooperative’s activity: farmers, suppliers and collaborating companies, public-administrative sector of
governments and business associations. The people selected for this process cover a learning process
of over 30 years of knowledge demonstrated in the EA sector. (b) Workshop Focus Group: Another
tool used to obtain empirical information and integrate knowledge and learning was the “Agri-Food
Platform”; it is a tool for social learning and innovation network for developing innovative patterns of
production by generating new knowledge. Since it was established in 2009, the “Agri-Food Platform”,
which was co-founded by the Camposeven Organic Cooperative along with the FGUPM and the
Technical University of Madrid, a meeting point is formed for the “WWP” model bases. During this
time, numerous workshops and Focus Groups between companies, universities and technology centers
related to the food industry have been carried out. In May 2011, the Agri-Food Platform was integrated
into the European Food for Life Platform, within which a new working group was created, the director
of the Organic Cooperative is the president of this new working group. Each group explores innovative
solutions to problems and opportunities, based on the experience gained in projects linked to the
different dimensions of sustainable management and rural prosperity. Each Focus Group meets
different key stakeholders (15–20 experts), including farmers, advisers, researchers and agri-business
representatives, to collect and summarize knowledge on best practices and strategies to improve
energy efficiency in ecological greenhouses.
Energies 2016, 9, 866 9 of 23

A seminar-workshop took place with executives and senior workers from different departments in
the Organic Cooperative. The sessions took place over four working days in their own facilities based on
the WWP technique, applied to various sustainable development projects in rural organizations [38,49,79].
The workshops reflect on these dimensions of the strategies analyzed in the interviews and provide
a deeper understanding of other aspects linked to the organization for efficient management and
ecological production.
This participatory process analyzes the producers’ experience and represents 415 hectares of
EA production, of which 65 hectares are ecological greenhouses. The information obtained from the
greenhouses covered the production cycles from 2002 to 2014. The information between 2002 and 2007
is based on CA. EA starts from 2007 with the integration of the ecological cooperative. Information
was gathered regarding the greenhouses’ type of production system, type of fuels used, the way in
which they received the fuel, the use of fuel in tons of oil equivalent (toe) by period, and energy used
by period (MWh). In order to study these, international Fuel and Natural Gas energy equivalents
were considered.

3. Results and Discussion

In this section, the different strategies adopted by the Organic Cooperative are analyzed. These are
aimed at improving energy efficiency in ecological greenhouses and achieving success in terms of
sustainable management. The results are presented in a logical way, based on the three dimensions of
the WWP model (technical-entrepreneurial, political-contextual and ethical-social) and according to
the scores from the parties involved.

3.1. Ethical-Social Strategies

Table 1 shows the scores given to different strategies adopted within the ethical-social dimension,
to promote sustainable success and energy efficiency.

Table 1. Ethical-social dimension strategies [38].

Scores from the Current

Strategy Adopted
Parties Involved (1–4) Aplication (%)
Creating a new innovation company based on trust and business ethics 3.6 100
Transforming the work process and changing mentality amongst members 3.5 100
Training personnel in sustainable management and ecological production 3.4 100
Promoting involvement, collaboration and cooperation 3.2 100

3.1.1. Creating a New Innovation Company Based on Trust and Business Ethics
This is the highest scoring strategy in this dimension. It was implemented following the
incorporation of the Organic Cooperative in 2007. It is a business set up by seven producers with
more than 30 years of agricultural experience, in keeping with common interests. From its beginnings,
Camposeven has been established on principles of trust and mutual support. The group’s activities
are guided by values that are shared by its members. The creation of the society was a result of
a separation from another company with a different vision. The Organic Cooperative’s vision is to
evolve production processes and create trust amongst members. Trust is the indicator that the members
consider to be the most important value. A farmer and member states: “From my experience across all
these years, I’ve learned that it is very important to have trust and specialize in something, it is fundamental to
have a good team of people, teamwork and personnel”.
The organic farmers also consider that, in order to improve efficiency, it is necessary to be
open-minded towards changes and differentiate themselves [80] from other companies with the same
production activity.
Energies 2016, 9, 866 10 of 23

3.1.2. Transformation of the Work Process and Change in Mentality amongst Members
Included in the new company’s strategy is a change in work processes and a change in mentality,
in order to completely transform their fieldwork and that of the farming industry in general. This also
refers to the processes of creating awareness amongst farmers as well as other external actors in the
“Food and Agriculture Platform”, reinforcing the arguments on the need to create healthy products for
people in order to achieve differentiation and to be widely accepted by consumers. This transformation
develops a sense of identity; it makes them different, enabling a transformation process from CA to
EA, with a vision for energy efficiency and profitability. As confirmed by an organic farmer: “The main
differences between Camposeven and other Agricultural Societies is its ways of working: innovation, looking
after people, research” [38].

3.1.3. Training in Relation to Sustainable Management and Ecological Production

This strategy incorporates proven expert knowledge [48,78] and learning in each of the actions.
The focus amongst personnel to homogenize technical knowledge leads to a production process which
makes it stand out from other companies within the industry. Training leads to sustainable practices
and actions. The effectiveness of the ecological production system requires the timely implementation
of agricultural works. This new system’s actions are aimed at maximizing the efficiency of energy
usage by eliminating fossil fuels and making the process profitable [81]. Establishing and maintaining
ongoing processes for training people, as well as improving members’ knowledge are key strategies
for Camposeven. The Organic Cooperative carries out actions to modernize and update training,
enabling the development of specific skills in relation to EA, as a differentiator for sustainable success.
One aspect of the organization’s success is the support for improving training amongst workers
and farmers. The level of training for farmers affects the extent of development of the agricultural
system [82]. As stated by a member of the Organic Cooperative: “From my experience across all these
years, I’ve learned that it is important to specialize in something, it is crucial to have a good team of people,
teamwork and personnel are fundamental”.

3.1.4. Promoting Participation, Collaboration and Cooperation

The strategies are the product of a plan implemented by an agricultural leader who is trusted
by a group of other farmers. According to Suh [83], leadership aimed at creating relationships based
on trust and assurance enables feedback and complementarity across all of the company’s activities
as well as the existence of collaboration. The Organic Cooperative is an example of teamwork,
which values the technical and production values of the goods and services produced, as well as the
people involved [48]. The Cooperative’s organizational structure facilitates decision making amongst
members [38], as a result of their participation. The organization’s management has enabled it to go
through changes which have resulted in decisions thanks to members’ interventions. The strategy for
involvement in management processes enables the existence of relationships between people in the
organization as well as other parties involved, with one supplier commenting that “The relationship
with Camposeven is collaborative, we have a relationship with the members. We work with them every day”.
The Organic Cooperative’s decisions are not made by a single person; there is involvement in decision
making. The current structure [38] shows the dynamic nature of internal involvement in terms of
managing production processes, as well as the appropriate use of natural resources through production
systems involving conservation work and rational use of fossil fuels. Various studies state that this
rational use of fossil fuels can be linked to people’s behavior [30].

3.2. Political-Contextual Dimension Strategies

Table 2 summarizes the strategies adopted within the political-contextual dimension to promote
sustainable success and energy efficiency. Based on the political-contextual dimension, the Organic
Energies 2016, 9, 866 11 of 23

Cooperative incorporates strategies in order to adapt to and connect with the socioeconomic and
environmental dynamics, in particular with the aim of eliminating chemical supplies and fossil fuels.

Table 2. Political-contextual dimension strategies [38].

Perception Amongst Current

Strategies
Members (1–4) Application
Consideration and analysis of the Organic Cooperative and
3.6 High
exploitation activity’s environmental effects
Creation of commercial alliances in order to access
3.2 High
international markets with demand for ecological products
Creation of R + D + i alliances 3.0 Medium
Self-management 2.6 High

3.2.1. Consideration and Analysis of the Environmental Effects of the Organic Cooperative’s
Activities and Operations
One of the premises that the change in production activity was based on, in parallel to the creation
of the Transformational Agricultural Society, was the direct links between all the company’s farmers
and the new fieldworks. The fieldwork includes conservation work. The ecological certification of
the new production systems, which currently applies to all farmers, is 100% focused on protecting the
environment and regenerating natural resources. These are activities that involve eliminating chemical
supplies and withdrawing (or making more efficient use of) fossil fuels. The result of these actions
is a reduction of more than 80% in the use of fossil fuels in the company’s greenhouses. One farmer
states that: “I’m very happy with the ecological production system, its objective is to produce food which is
healthy for people”.

3.2.2. Creation of Commercial Alliances to Access International Markets with Demand for
Ecological Products
The Organic Cooperative’s objective is to produce ecological food at an international standard,
highly competitive with differentiating factors [80] in the market. Business management led by
the Cooperative’s commercial team has enabled commercial alliances to be created directly with
high profile customers in the EU region. As a result of this strategy, more than 90% of the
Cooperative’s ecological production is in international markets, this being one of the key pillars
of success for the organization and the prosperity of the associated operations. International and
national competitiveness is another of the highly influential factors, in order to be able to compete with
growing international competition. Based on experience, it is considered vital that the cooperative’s
products are able to compete in the international market based on quality and price, and differentiate
themselves through ecological and biodynamic certification.

3.2.3. Creation of R + D + i Alliances

Table 2 shows the organization’s strategies relating to this dimension. The level of perception
amongst members reflects the strengths of its development as an Agricultural Society. An important
indicator is the continuous innovation through R + D + i, which is a differentiator within the food
and agriculture industry. A farmer with more than 40 years of experience in this field expresses his
confidence in the innovation “Camposeven is a leader, it is an exception within the sector, it is an example
which should be followed”. In 2009, the Organic Cooperative integrated with companies in the sector,
creating different organizations (Food and Agriculture Platform with the UPM and companies in the
sector, Food for Life European Platform). The objective of these actions is to have a greater presence in
the food and agriculture market. Its strategic R + D + i links with the UPM’s (Universidad Politécnica de
Madrid) GESPLAN Group created the “Ingenuity Foundation Chair“ project in 2013 with the objective
of creating technological innovations in the efficient use of energy and with the vision of reducing
Energies 2016, 9, 866 12 of 23

fossil fuels, linked to the ever complicated use of the region’s water sources and improving ecological
crop techniques, whilst ensuring their activities contribute day-by-day to a more profitable company
with the vision of making the natural environment a social property for communal enjoyment.

3.2.4. Self-Management
A characteristic of the Organic Cooperative is the aim of self-sufficiency, which is reflected in
its search for energy efficiency and profitability. The cooperative has the perception that agricultural
companies should be based on competitiveness and should not be dependent on the public sector.
Two member farmers mention that “public support make the organized groups less competitive, because
society should be self-sufficient” [38]. There is currently public support from the European Union.
This support represents an average of 4.5% of the incomes from the commercialization of fruit
and vegetable products. The support is applied to activities such as research for innovation in
production systems, environmental improvements amongst others [84]. The ecological cooperative
participates in this program by complying with ecological certification rules [54,56], which have
allowed it to successfully introduce its ecological products in countries within the European Union.
The Cooperative’s objective is to be innovative, improve energy efficiency and make use of natural
resources with a sustainability vision.

3.3. Technical-Entrepreneurial Dimension Strategies

One of Organic Cooperative’s fundamental indicators its ability to transform as an organization,
highlighting its ability to take action and create a new system, when the current situation is not
sustainable [46,85]. Within this dimension, strategies are aimed at improving its business function [78],
through improvements in the sustainable management of natural resources, technological innovation
and the efficient use of energy. The main strategies used (Table 3) from a technical-entrepreneurial point
of view are linked to the activities aimed at the sustainable use of natural resources, optimizing energy
usage, eliminating chemical supplies and differentiating their ecological and biodynamic products in
the market.

Table 3. Technical-entrepreneurial dimension strategies [38].

Strategies Importance (1–4) Application by Farmers (%)

Restructuring towards ecological products 3.9 100
Diversification of products 3.9 100
Technological renewal of operations 3.3 90
Use of fuels and energy reduction 3.3 80

3.3.1. Restructuring towards Ecological and Diversified Products

The technical-entrepreneurial strategies implemented by the farmers are based on more than
30 years of experience and social learning processes. Following the incorporation of the Organic
Cooperative, significant changes were made in the way crops are grown. The report created by the
European Commission [38] details the farmers’ decision to make Camposeven a 100% ecological
agricultural development. The conventional system of producing agricultural food products is
abandoned in favor of 100% of crops becoming properly certified as ecological, whilst carrying
out conservation work [6].
Greenhouses convert their conventional production systems to ecological ones, adjusting their
teams’ operational processes. The amount of energy required to develop each crop is calculated.
Double covers and thermal screens are used in order to lose less heat during the night. The temperature
of the nighttime heating is reduced from 19◦ to 12◦ (making more efficient use of energy). Varieties are
used which are less sensitive to the cold. The idea is to use less and less heating. Biodynamic agriculture
certification does not allow the use of heating [54], unless the nocturnal temperature reaches a level
Energies 2016, 9, 866 13 of 23

that could harm the crops. All the efforts are dedicated to minimizing a loss of heat at night which has
been accumulated throughout the day, with the objective of making efficient use of heat energy.
The consumers of ecological products demand a diverse range of quality organic products.
Several researchers in America state that since 2000, consumers purchase organic products through
conventional channels such as supermarkets, rather than through other means [86]. It is common
for supermarkets to offer a wide range of ecological products. The use of greenhouses is able to
accelerate metabolism and/or protect various crops so that they can take them to the market before
any other producers in the region. The diversity of products out of season is an opportunity to provide
international customers with confidence.
The Organic Cooperative’s range of products has enabled it to establish itself in the market.
Its mixed crop operations mean it can offer this diversity. In order to offer high quality diversified
products, its basic activities (sowing, growing, harvesting, preparation, packaging and marketing) need
to be part of a highly coordinated process [38]. The fundamental activities required to produce a finished
product need to make efficient use of water resources, greenhouses, research and technological
development areas, the implementation of conservation agriculture tasks and regeneration of natural
resources as well as reducing energy and using fossil fuels more efficiently. This results in reduced
costs and a direct increase in profitability [87]. These actions have resulted in an improvement in the
quality of life amongst the members, individuals and groups linked to the company’s operations.
Finally, by differentiating ecological and biodynamic products in the international market, it has
enabled the Organic Cooperative’s products to be widely accepted. Currently, over 90% of its products
are exported, with this market being key to its success.

3.3.2. Technological Renewal, Use of Fuels and Energy Reduction

The strategy of technological renewal in terms of operations is an inherent part of the change from
a conventional production system to an ecological system. Changes were not only made in open-air
crops, but also in greenhouses. The technology used for greenhouse crops is completely different;
it requires more attention, especially in terms of temperature control. Technological renewal involves
changing from a conventional system to an ecological or conservation system. As one farmer and
Organic Cooperative member expresses, “The majority of operations are experiencing a modernization and
renewal process, in this sector adapt or die” [38].
The Company has 65 hectares of greenhouses, with 100% being ecologically certified.
Seventy percent have the ecological seal for biodynamic agriculture or DEMETER certification.
Biodynamic agriculture is characterized by the restricted use of fossil fuels and a significant reduction in
energy use. Point 3.4.5 of this certification states the following:

Production under Glass and Plastics: The energy usage for heating crops under glass or plastic should
be kept as low as possible. Energy saving techniques, such as the use of special heating systems (e.g.,
ground or vegetation heating) must be introduced to the enterprise wherever possible. [54]

EA tasks, which include the addition of the other crops and compost prepared according to
ecological certifications, in greenhouses, show the results of a more efficient use of energy and ongoing
costs reductions, making the system profitable. The data from 2002 to 2014 show the impact of making
more efficient use of natural resources, by giving agricultural tasks a conservationist focus.
Farmers have traditionally tried to ensure the success of greenhouse crops by using heating.
Traditional heating systems are fueled by carbon, wood, organic materials or diesel oil and, since 2005
in the Murcia region, by natural gas. Heating systems demonstrate the inconvenience arising from
a lack of uniformity in terms of radiation and maintaining temperature. These systems are very useful
and economical and they use widely available fuels. Another system that has been very useful for the
Organic Cooperative in 14% of its greenhouse operations is a water vapor heating system (Figure 6)
through 1.5-inch diameter steel tubes (Figure 7).
 of making more efficient use of natural resources, by giving agricultural tasks a conservationist focus. 
Farmers  have  traditionally  tried  to  ensure  the  success  of  greenhouse  crops  by  using  heating. 
Traditional  heating  systems are  fueled  by  carbon, wood,  organic  materials  or  diesel  oil and, since 
2005 in the Murcia region, by natural gas. Heating systems demonstrate the inconvenience arising 
from a lack of uniformity in terms of radiation and maintaining temperature. These systems are very 
useful and economical and they use widely available fuels. Another system that has been very useful 
Energies 2016,for 
9, 866
the  Organic  Cooperative  in  14%  of  its  greenhouse  operations  is  a  water  vapor  heating  system  14 of 23
(Figure 6) through 1.5‐inch diameter steel tubes (Figure 7). 

Energies 2016, 9, 866  14 of 22 
 
Figure 6. Boilers and water vapor injectors. 
Figure 6. Boilers and water vapor injectors.
Energies 2016, 9, 866  14 of 22 

   
Figure 7. Steel plumbing system for distributing water vapor. 
Figure 7. Steel plumbing system for distributing water vapor. 
Figure 7. Steel plumbing system for distributing water vapor.
The system radiates energy to the structure’s surroundings, with 25% of this energy reaching 
The system radiates energy to the structure’s surroundings, with 25% of this energy reaching 
the  ground.  This  system  has  provided  positive  results,  with  reduced  costs  observed  during  each 
The system
the  ground.  This radiates
production system  energy to the structure’s
has  provided 
period  (Figure  positive 
8).  Based  on 
surroundings,
results, 
the  information 
with
with  reduced 
obtained 
25%farmers 
of this
from  the costs 
energy during 
observed  reachingeach 
regarding  the 
the
ground. This system has provided positive results, with reduced costs observed during
greenhouses’ costs per square meter (Table 4 and Figure 8), the change from a conventional to an 
production  period  (Figure  8).  Based  on  the  information  obtained  from  the  farmers  regarding  the  each production
period (Figure 8). Based on the information obtained from the farmers regarding the greenhouses’ costs
ecological agricultural production system is quantified. A direct decrease in fossil fuels is observed 
greenhouses’ costs per square meter (Table 4 and Figure 8), the change from a conventional to an 
per (by  80%) 
square meter (Tableas  well 
4 as 
and a  decrease 
Figure 8), in  the
operational 
changecosts 
fromin aecological  greenhouses 
conventional to an (2.48  Euros/magricultural
ecological
2) 
ecological agricultural production system is quantified. A direct decrease in fossil fuels is observed 
compared  to  conventional  ones  (3.35  Euros/m ),  with  an  overall  cost  reduction  of  26%.  This  cost 
2
production system is quantified. A direct decrease in fossil fuels is observed (by 80%)
(by  80%)  reduction arising from the change to an ecological production system impacts the farmers’ financial 
as  well  as  a  decrease  in  operational  costs  in  ecological  greenhouses  (2.48  as well as
Euros/m 2) 
acompared  costs in ecological greenhouses (2.48 Euros/m 2 ) compared to conventional
decreasebenefits. Furthermore, the integral transformation of the ecological cooperative and the decrease in 
in operational
to  conventional  ones  (3.35  Euros/m2),  with  an  overall  cost  reduction  of  26%.  This  cost 
ones (3.35 Euros/m 2 ), with an overall cost reduction of 26%. This cost reduction arising from the
fuels and supplies, enable a more efficient use of resources, with environmental effects and a direct 
reduction arising from the change to an ecological production system impacts the farmers’ financial 
change impact in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reduced contamination of soil and 
to an ecological production system impacts the farmers’ financial benefits. Furthermore, the
benefits. Furthermore, the integral transformation of the ecological cooperative and the decrease in 
aquifers [24]. 
integral transformation of the ecological cooperative and the decrease in fuels and supplies, enable
fuels and supplies, enable a more efficient use of resources, with environmental effects and a direct 
aimpact in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reduced contamination of soil and 
more efficient use of resources, with environmental effects and a direct impact in terms of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, as wellCost in Euros/m2  of greenhouse
aquifers [24].  as reduced contamination of soil and aquifers [24].
15 11.4 12
9.61 9.5
7.06 7.41 7.5 7.7 6.12
10
Euros

5
Cost in Euros/m2  of greenhouse
0

15 11.4 12
9.61 9.5
7.06 7.41 7.5 7.7 6.12
10
Euros

5 Operating cycles
0  
Figure 8. Greenhouse costs. Source: fieldwork. 

Table 4. Average operational costs in greenhouses 2002–2015. Source: fieldwork. 

Costs per Greenhouse (Euros/m ) 2
Operating cycles
Variable  Conventional  Ecological  Difference  % 
Greenhouses  Greenhouses   
Agricultural tasks  2.00  2.97  0.97  48% 
Figure 8. Greenhouse costs. Source: fieldwork. 
Water 
Figure 0.05  Source: fieldwork.
8. Greenhouse costs. 0.15  0.10  198% 
Fuels  3.24  1.43  −1.82  −56% 
CO2  1.18  ‐  −1.18 
Table 4. Average operational costs in greenhouses 2002–2015. Source: fieldwork.  −100% 
Production supplies (fertilizers, seeds, etc.)  3.35  2.48  −0.87  −26% 
Amortization (farm equipment, pumping  Costs per Greenhouse (Euros/m2)
0.34  0.29  −0.05  −15% 
equipment, heating equipment) 
Variable  Conventional  Ecological  Difference  % 
Greenhouses  Greenhouses 
Energies 2016, 9, 866 15 of 23

Table 4. Average operational costs in greenhouses 2002–2015. Source: fieldwork.

Costs per Greenhouse (Euros/m2 )

Variable Conventional Ecological Difference %
Greenhouses Greenhouses
Agricultural tasks 2.00 2.97 0.97 48%
Water 0.05 0.15 0.10 198%
Fuels 3.24 1.43 −1.82 −56%
CO2 1.18 - −1.18 −100%
Production supplies (fertilizers, seeds, etc.) 3.35 2.48 −0.87 −26%
Amortization (farm equipment, pumping
0.34 0.29 −0.05 −15%
equipment, heating equipment)
Administrative expenses 1.23 1.06 −0.17 −14%
Total 11.39 8.37 −3.01 −26%

Table 5 shows additional data on average productivity, demonstrating that ecological greenhouses
are less productive compared with conventional ones, which is in line with other studies [87]. However,
it is shown how the prices obtained for products from ecological greenhouses are higher than those
from conventional ones. These higher sale prices for ecological products, which are linked to reduced
operating costs, create a positive impact on the overall benefits received by ecological farmers.

Table 5. Benefits in greenhouses 2002–2015. Source: fieldwork; * PV/m2 = (Production/m2 )(Prices/kg);

** Benefit/m2 = PV/m2 − TC/m2 .

Benefits per Greenhouse (Euros/m2 )

VARIABLE Conventional Ecological Difference %
Greenhouses Greenhouses
Production/m2 14.32 9.00 5.32 −37%
Prices/kg 1.14 1.70 0.56 49%
* Production Value/m2 16.32 16.65 0.33 2%
Total cost/m2 11.39 8.38 3.01 −26%
** Benefit/m2 4.93 6.92 1.99 40%

A characteristic of the boilers is their versatility in terms of fuel usage. The boilers are adapted for
the use of different fuels, fuel or natural gas. Since 2005, the use of fuel was based on the prices offered
in the production area. The decision to use different fuels between 2005 and 2014 is linked to the more
accessible pricing during the required period.
These greenhouses benefit from modern installations. The heating system is by radiation through
pipes with a dual purpose, they help transport workers for day-to-day work (internal tracks) (Figure 2)
and generate internal heat in the greenhouse (Figure 7).
The farmers’ initiatives are linked to seeking efficiencies and profitability. The design of these
installations enables agricultural tasks to become more efficient. The physical efforts of farmers is
limited to manual work, moving and loading produce is carried out using wheelbarrows which have
been adapted to the rails, making the production activities more efficient (Figure 2).

3.3.3. Use of Fuels and Energy Reduction in Greenhouses

In order to discuss energy efficiency, it is necessary to analyze all of the energy sources in the
system. In this case, only the use of fossil fuels will be analyzed. With regards to efficiency, only the
use of fuels in greenhouses (natural gas and fuel) will be referred to. Table 6 shows the intermittence
and percent of the type of fuel used between 2002 and 2014. The use of natural gas by farmers became
prominent in 2005, a year in which gas pipelines were installed in the region. In the period between
2002 and 2006, the Organic Cooperative was not yet incorporated. The region’s suppliers invoice the
Energies 2016, 9, 866 16 of 23

farmers for fuel by kilogram (kg). The producers use the cheapest fuel available to them when they
need it. The variation in use of fuel from the period 2006/2007 is a result of the difference in price in
each production period. The equipment installed in the greenhouses enables the use of any type of
fuel. Figure 4 shows the amount of fuel in tones used since 2003. By starting to work with EA, farmers
are able to reduce the use of fossil fuels and optimize the amount used.

Table 6. Type of fuel used between 2002 and 2015. Source: Field work.

Fuel/Period 2002/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2013 2013/2014

Fuel 100% 5% 25% 100% 50% - 100% -
Natural gas - 95% 75% - 50% 100% - 100%

The different proportion of fuels used (Figure 9) is a decision made by farmers when they purchase
Energies 2016, 9, 866  16 of 22 
the fuel. The decisions are based on the price differences between fuels. The objective is to use the type
of fuel efficiently and make the system more profitable. This group of farmers can be characterized by
use the type of fuel efficiently and make the system more profitable. This group of farmers can be 
their continuous
characterized  by analysis of income and
their  continuous  expenditure.
analysis  Less
of  income  fuel
and  is used, or more
expenditure.  Less efficient use ofor 
fuel  is  used,  themore 
fuel
is possible, as a result of changing to ecological conservation work.
efficient use of the fuel is possible, as a result of changing to ecological conservation work. 

Amount of fuel used (Ton)
2,000

1,500

1,000

500

FUEL NATURAL GAS TOTAL

 
Figure 9. Fuels used in greenhouses. Source: Fieldwork. 
Figure 9. Fuels used in greenhouses. Source: Fieldwork.

The information presented in Table 7 includes fuel (fuel and natural gas), converted in order to 
The information presented in Table 7 includes fuel (fuel and natural gas), converted in order to
calculate the energy used, in toe, an indicator which is defined as 1077 kcal (41,868 GJ), the equivalent 
calculate the energy used, in toe, an indicator which is defined as 10 kcal (41,868 GJ), the equivalent
energy released by burning one ton of crude oil [8]. The opportunity is taken to differentiate the use 
energy released by burning one ton of crude oil [8]. The opportunity is taken to differentiate the use
of each of the fuels. The market’s influence on the price of fuel does not allow farmers to use 100% 
of each of the fuels. The market’s influence on the price of fuel does not allow farmers to use 100%
natural  gas  (a  fuel  which  has  less  contamination  impact  on  the  environment).  Despite  this,  the 
natural gas (a fuel which has less contamination impact on the environment). Despite this, the Organic
Organic  Cooperative  farmers  make  efficient  use  of  each  type  of  fuel  and  the  energy  itself.  This 
Cooperative farmers make efficient use of each type of fuel and the energy itself. This efficient usage
efficient  usage  refers  to  the  strict  use  of  fuel  for  the  crop’s  most  pressing  needs  in  critically  cold 
refers to the strict use of fuel for the crop’s most pressing needs in critically cold periods.
periods. 
Table 7. Toe by type of fuel. * 1000 kg fuel = 0.96 toe; ** 10 m3 Natural gas = 0.928 toe.
Table 7. Toe by type of fuel. NG:; * 1000 Kg fuel = 0.96 toe; ** 10 m3 NG = 0.928 toe. 

2002–
2002– 2003–
2003– 2004–
2004– 2005–
2005– 2006–
2006– 2007– 2008–
2007– 2008– 2009–
2009– 2010–
2010– 2011–
2011– 2012–
2012– 2013–
2013–
Product
Product 
2003 2004 
2003  2004 2005 
2005 2006
2006  2007
2007  2008
2008  2009
2009  2010
2010  2011
2011  2012
2012  2013
2013  2014
2014 
Fuel * 
Fuel * 1213 
1213 1193 
1193 1483 
1483 1259 
1259 55 
55 259  573
259 573  465465  - ‐  141  146
141 146  - ‐ 
Natural gas ** 
Natural gas ** ‐  - ‐  - ‐ - ‐ - 1,243 
1243 928 
928 - ‐  556  402
556 402  - ‐  - ‐  191191 
Total toe 
Total toe 1213 
1213 1193 
1193 1483 
1483 1259 
1259 1,297 
1297 1,187  573
1187 573  1022
1022  402
402  141
141  146 146  191 191 

The important aspects of Table 7 and Figure 10 are the way in which non‐renewable resources 
are managed. Ecological conservation works [6,16,45] allow for a more efficient use of fossil fuels. 
The focus on efficiency and profitability is effective, resulting in an 84.2% decrease in fuel in 12 years. 
The  farmers  in  the  Organic  Cooperative  who  have  ecological  greenhouses  are  an  example  of  the 
opportunity that exists in improving the conventional production system through changes to basic 
agricultural tasks focused on conservation. 
 Energies 2016, 9, 866 17 of 23

The important aspects of Table 7 and Figure 10 are the way in which non-renewable resources
are managed. Ecological conservation works [6,16,45] allow for a more efficient use of fossil fuels.
The focus on efficiency and profitability is effective, resulting in an 84.2% decrease in fuel in 12 years.
The farmers in the Organic Cooperative who have ecological greenhouses are an example of the
opportunity that exists in improving the conventional production system through changes to basic
agricultural tasks focused on conservation.
Energies 2016, 9, 866  17 of 22 

toe used in greenhouse
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0

FUEL NATURAL GAS TOTAL

 

Figure 10. Toe by type of fuel. Source: Fieldwork

Figure 10. Toe by type of fuel. Source: Fieldwork 

Table 8 is the record of energy used in ecological greenhouses. The 84% decrease in energy has 
Table 8 is the record of energy used in ecological greenhouses. The 84% decrease in energy has
a positive impact on the environment, improves profitability for investors and improves the quality 
a positive impact on the environment, improves profitability for investors and improves the quality of
of life for the organization and the individuals and groups who are linked to the integrated process 
life for the organization and the individuals and groups who are linked to the integrated process of
of producing, preparing, packaging, marketing and distributing ecological food. 
producing, preparing, packaging, marketing and distributing ecological food.

Table 8. Energy used in MWh * between 2002 and 2014. * 1 MWh = 0.086 toe; Source: Field work. 
Table 8. Energy used in MWh * between 2002 and 2014. * 1 MWh = 0.086 toe; Source: Field work.
2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2008– 2009– 2010– 2011– 2012– 2013–
Product  2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2008– 2009– 2010– 2011– 2012– 2013–
2003 
Product 2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014 
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fuel  104  103  127  108  5  22  49  40  0  12  13  0 
Fuel 104 103 127 108 5 22 49 40 0 12 13 0
NG  0  0  0  0  107  80  0  48  35  0  0  16 
Natural gas 0 0 0 0 107 80 0 48 35 0 0 16
Total  Total 104  103  103127  127 108 108 112 
104 112 102 
102 49 
49 88 
88 3535  12 12  13 13  16 16 

The results shown in Figure 11 are the Organic Cooperative organization’s objectives: moving 
The results shown in Figure 11 are the Organic Cooperative organization’s objectives: moving
away from CA towards EA; eliminating chemical and oil supplies; reducing fossil fuel usage; making 
away from CA towards EA; eliminating chemical and oil supplies; reducing fossil fuel usage; making
more efficient use of the energy in greenhouses; making EA in greenhouses profitable; improving the 
more efficient use of the energy in greenhouses; making EA in greenhouses profitable; improving the
quality of life for members and workers; and improving the environment as a result of better soil and 
quality of life for members and workers; and improving the environment as a result of better soil and
water sources. 
water sources.
Greenhouses have been, and continue to be, instrumental in increasing fruit and vegetable
Energy used in MWh
production at a global level. Their high usage of energy from fossil fuels is discussed, as well as their
high greenhouse gas emissions. The results presented here create the possibility of resuming activities
300
involving the use of EA in protected agriculture, whilst in parallel reducing expenditure by shifting
250
from CA to EA. 200
150
100
50
0

FUEL NATURAL GAS TOTAL

 
 The results shown in Figure 11 are the Organic Cooperative organization’s objectives: moving 
away from CA towards EA; eliminating chemical and oil supplies; reducing fossil fuel usage; making 
more efficient use of the energy in greenhouses; making EA in greenhouses profitable; improving the 
quality of life for members and workers; and improving the environment as a result of better soil and 
Energies 2016, 9, 866 18 of 23
water sources. 

Energy used in MWh
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

FUEL NATURAL GAS TOTAL

 
Figure 11. Energy use in Organic Cooperative greenhouses. Source: Fieldwork 
Figure 11. Energy use in Organic Cooperative greenhouses. Source: Fieldwork

4. Conclusions
The Organic Cooperative is an organization dedicated to the production of ecological fruit and
vegetable crops. Following its change in production activity, from CA to EA, it has created innovative
tools which have enabled it to be efficient in the use of fuels, reduce the use of energy from fossil
fuels and contribute to environmental improvements. Based on a social learning process, across
more than 30 years of experience, there has been a change from a conventional production system to
an ecological one, which has not only impacted farmers’ financial benefits, but presumably also has
positive environmental effects as a result of using less fuel and agricultural supplies.
The factors in the ethical-social dimension have influenced the outcomes of the company’s vast
transformation. The conduct of individuals within the Organic Cooperative means that their skills
and abilities are improved, creating total confidence and teamwork, with ethics and values being
fundamental aspects. The activities within this dimension have led to a complete acceptance of the use
of ecological production systems. This change led to the implementation of new agricultural tasks
(conservation and regeneration of natural resources) and a more rational use of fossil fuels. These are
factors that the European Commission itself outlines as important ethical and social considerations, in
particular in relation to agriculture and related food production [88].
The regional and international strategic vision, influenced by the political-contextual dimension,
enables it to specifically plan its activities and implement the necessary strategies in order to improve
the management of natural resources. Based on this political-contextual dimension, the ecological
cooperative commits to the EU’s objectives for reducing energy consumption [11,37,66], and making
more efficient use of energy by reducing the use of fossil fuels. Their production activities are clearly
linked to the EU’s 20-20-20 strategy: use 20% renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
20% and improve energy efficiency by 20%.
The farmers’ competencies create strategies within the Organic Cooperative’s technical-entrepreneurial
dimension. Technological change leads to modifications in the production systems in 100% of
operations, as well as in all of the greenhouses. By moving towards ecological production, it enables it
to access the main ecological product markets within the European Union. Ecological product export
activity is its main source of income (it currently exports over 90% of its products). The importance
of this change has been the wide acceptance of its ecological products offered, combined with the
profitability from its efficient production process, with the withdrawal and efficient use of fossil fuels
also being an important factor in its success.
Technological innovation creates experience and knowledge in terms of the efficient use of fossil
fuels. Greenhouses are the production strategy that consumes the most energy within the agricultural
Energies 2016, 9, 866 19 of 23

system. Training farmers in new technology is the basis on which they are able to decide how much
and which type of fuel to use in the greenhouses, making use of them in an efficient and profitable
manner. The organic cooperative’s ecological greenhouses create products in greater volumes and
with higher quality. Their products are used strategically as they are harvested out of season and can
be taken to market before competitor products. The changes in the ecological system led to a more
rational and efficient use of fuels. The organic cooperative’s ecological greenhouses have reduced
the use of fossil fuels by more than 80% over 12 years. A clear success of the strategies adopted by
the farmers in the Organic Cooperative is the reduced total operating costs (by 26%) as a result of
transforming the conventional system to an ecological one in greenhouses.
The Organic Cooperative’s experience with regards to the ecological system and the use of
greenhouses creates a new vision in the field of fossil fuel usage. The design used within EA,
implementing crop conservation tasks contributes to the efficient use of energy required in the
greenhouses. The experience of these farmers is a result of social integration. The group’s inclusive
vision is a product of the social learning process and improved confidence in the decisions made.

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the participation of owner-operator greenhouse farmers for
providing information that has contributed to the research and the farmers Cooperative Organic Production
(SAT Camposeven).
Author Contributions: Hilario Becerril and Ignacio de los Rios designed the study. Hilario Becerril collected
information in the field. Hilario Becerril and Ignacio de los Rios analyzed information. Ignacio de los Rios
contributed to the methodology and professional guidance. Hilario Becerril and Ignacio de los Rios wrote
the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Darnhofer, I.; de los Rios, I.; Knickel, K.; Koopmans, M.; Lamine, C.; Almored, G.; Tisenkopfs, T. Rethinking the
Links between Farm Modernization, Rural Development and Resilience in a World of Increasing Demands and
Finite Resources; RURAGRI: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
2. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016–2017; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
3. Canning, P.; Charles, A.; Huang, S.; Polenske, K.R.; Waters, A. Energy Use in the U.S. Food System; United States
Department Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
4. Woods, J.; Williams, A.; Hughes, J.K.; Black, M.; Murphy, R. Energy and the food system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
2010, 365, 2991–3006. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. La Energía en España 2014; Ministerio de Industria Energía y Turismo: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
6. Pimentel, D.; Hepperly, P.; Hanson, J.; Douds, D.; Seidel, R. Environmental, Energetic, and Economic
Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. BioScience 2005, 55, 573–582. [CrossRef]
7. Lamb, A.; Green, R.; Lan, B.; Broadmead, M.; Bruce, T.; Burney, J.; Carey, P.; Chadwick, D.; Crane, E.; Field, R.; et al.
The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6,
488–492. [CrossRef]
8. Algor, S.L. Energía 2015; Foro Nuclear: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
9. Fischer, T.; Byerlee, D.; Edmeades, G. Crop Yields and Global Food Security: Will Yield Increase Continue to Feed
the World?, 1st ed.; Twofoot Consulting Group: Canberra, Australia, 2014; pp. 462–467.
10. Shannon, K.L.; Kim, B.F.; McKenzie, S.E.; Lawrence, R.S. Food System Policy, Public Health, and Human
Rights in the United States. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2015, 36, 151–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Pereira, V.J. Energy consumption across European Union farms: Efficiency in terms of farming output and
utilized agricultural area. Energy 2016, 103, 543–556.
12. Pelletier, N.; Audsley, E.; Brodt, S.; Garnett, T.; Henriksson, P.; Kendall, A.; Kramer, K.J.; Murphy, D.;
Nemecek, T.; Troell, M. Energy Intensity of Agriculture and Food Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011,
36, 223–246. [CrossRef]
13. El Estado de la Inseguridad Alimentaria en El mundo 2015; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO): Roma, Italy, 2015. (In Italian)
Energies 2016, 9, 866 20 of 23

14. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO):
Roma, Italy, 2002.
15. Willer, H.; Lernoud, J. The World of Organic Agriculture—Stadistics and Emerging Trends 2016.
Available online: https://shop.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1698-organic-world-2016.pdf
(accessed on 30 June 2016).
16. Pimentel, D.; Berardi, G.; Fast, S. Energy efficiency of farming systems: Organic and conventional agriculture.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1983, 9, 359–372. [CrossRef]
17. Scialabba, N.E.; Müller-Lindenlauf, M. Organic agriculture and climate change. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.
2010, 25, 158–169. [CrossRef]
18. Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature
2012, 485, 229–232. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Haas, G.; Wetterich, F.; Köpke, U. Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in
southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 83, 43–53. [CrossRef]
20. Dalgaard, T.; Halberg, N.; Porter, J.R. A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare
organic and conventional farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 87, 51–65. [CrossRef]
21. Hoeppner, J.; Entz, M.; McConkey, B.; Zentner, R.; Nagy, C. Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian
organic and conventional crop production systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2006, 21, 60–67. [CrossRef]
22. Muhammad, S.; Fathelrahman, E.; Tasbih, R.U. Factors Affecting Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Certified
Organic Food Products in United Arab Emirates. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2015, 46, 37–45.
23. Nguyen, M.; Haynes, R. Energy and labour efficiency for three pairs of conventional and alternative mixed
cropping (pasture-arable) farms in Canterbury, New Zealand. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1995, 52, 163–172.
[CrossRef]
24. Pimentel, D. Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency of Energy Use in Agriculture. An Organic Center State of
Science Review; The Organic Center: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
25. Belloti, B.; Rochecouste, J. The development of Conservation Agriculture in Australia—Farmers as innovators.
Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2014, 2, 21–34. [CrossRef]
26. Wood, R.; Manfred, L.; Dey, C.; Lundie, S. A comparative study of some environmental impacts of
conventional and organic farming in Australia. Agric. Syst. 2005, 89, 324–348. [CrossRef]
27. Longo, S.; Mistretta, M.; Guarino, F.; Cellura, M. Life cycle assessment of organic and conventional apple
supply chains in the North of Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2016. [CrossRef]
28. Aravindakshan, S.; Rossi, F.; Krupnik, T. What does benchmarking of wheat farmers practicing conservation
tillage in the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains tell us about energy use efficiency? An application of slack-based
data envelopment analysis. Energy 2015, 90, 483–493. [CrossRef]
29. Rhodes, C.J. Fossil fuel use is limited by climate, if not by resources, and “Peak Soil”. Sci. Prog. 2015, 98,
73–82. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Stern, P.; Janda, K.; Brown, M.; Steg, L.; Vine, E.; Lutzenhiser, L. Opportunities and insights for reducing
fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nat. Energy 2016, 1. [CrossRef]
31. Brosch, T.; Sander, D.; Patel, M.K. Editorial: Behavioral insights for a sustainable energy transition.
Front. Energy Res. 2016, 4. [CrossRef]
32. Glaser, M.; Krause, G.; Ratter, B.; Welp, M. Human/Nature interaction in the anthropocene potential of
social-ecological systems analysis. Dtsch. Ges. Hum.-Okol. 2008, 17, 77–80.
33. Holling, C.S. Two Cultures of Ecology. 1998. Available online: http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/art4/
(accessed on 30 June 2016).
34. OECD Factbook 2015–2016: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics; The Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD): London, UK, 2016. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
factbook-2015-en (accessed on 24 June 2016).
35. Sartori, L.; Basso, B.; Bertocco, M.; Oliviero, G. Energy Use and Economic Evaluation of a Three Year Crop
Rotation for Conservation and Organic Farming in NE Italy. Biosyst. Eng. 2005, 245–256. [CrossRef]
36. Haberl, H.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Krausmann, F.; Weisz, H.; Winiwarter, V. Progress towards sustainability?
What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Policy
2004, 21, 199–213. [CrossRef]
37. Communication from the Commission European 2020 a Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth;
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
Energies 2016, 9, 866 21 of 23

38. De los Ríos, I.; Garcia, C.; Herrera, A.T.; Rivera, M. Innovation and Social Learning in Organic Vegetable
Production in the Region of Murcia, Camposeven, Spain; RETHINK Case Study Report, GESPLAN; Technical
University of Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
39. Hernánz, J.; Girón, V.; Cerisola, C. Long-term energy use and economic evaluation of three tillage systems
for cereal and legume production in central Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 1995, 35, 183–198. [CrossRef]
40. Gomieroa, T.; Paolettia, M.; Pimentel, D. Energy and environmental Issues in Organic and Conventional
Agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2008, 27, 239–254. [CrossRef]
41. Qu, M.; Lin, Y.; Liu, C.; Yao, S.; Cao, Y. Farmers’ perceptions of developing forest based bioenergy in China.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 581–589. [CrossRef]
42. Deike, S.; Pallutt, B.; Christen, O. Investigations on the energy efficiency of organic and integrated farming
with specific emphasis on pesticide use intensity. Eur. J. Agron. 2011, 28, 461–470. [CrossRef]
43. De los Rios, I.; Cadena, J.; Diaz, J.M. Creating local action groups for rural development in México:
Methodological approach and lessons learned. Agrociencia 2011, 45, 815–829.
44. Smith, L.G.; Williams, A.; Pearce, B. The energy efficiency of organic agriculture: A review. Renew. Agric.
Food Syst. 2015, 30, 280–301. [CrossRef]
45. Clark, S.; Khoshnevisan, B.; Sefeedpari, P. Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions during transition
to organic and reduced-input practices: Student farm case study. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 88, 186–194. [CrossRef]
46. De los Rios, I.; Becerril, H.; Rivera, M. Ecological agriculture and its influence on rural prosperity:
An agricultural company’s vision (Murcia, Spain). Agrociencia 2016, 50, 375–389.
47. De los Rios, I.; Rivera, M.; Garcia, C. Redefining rural prosperity through social learning in the cooperative
sector: 25 years of experience from organic agriculture in Spain. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 85–94. [CrossRef]
48. Cazorla, A.; De los Ríos, I. Rural Development as “Working with People”: A Proposal for Policy Management in
Public Domain, 1st ed.; Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (UPM): Madrid, Spain, 2012; pp. 6–18.
49. Cazorla, A.; De los Ríos, I.; Salvo, M. Working With People (WWP) in rural development projects: A proposal
from social learning. Cuad. Desarro. Rural 2013, 10, 131–157.
50. Enfoque LEADER Guia Basica; Comisión Europea: Bruselas, Belgium, 2006.
51. Benson, D.; Lorenzoni, I.; Cook, H. Evaluating social learning in England flood risk management:
An individual-community interaction perspective. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 326–334. [CrossRef]
52. Tàbara, J.D.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Sustainability Learning in Natural Resource Use and Management. 2007.
Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art3/ (accessed on 30 June 2016).
53. De los Rios, I.; Becerril, H.; Rivera, M.; Garcia, C. Managing for the Sustained Success of Organic Food
Associations: A Sustainable Management Approach from “Working with People” Model. In Food Science,
Production, and Engineering in Contemporary Economies; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; Volume I, p. 473.
54. Demeter Internacional e.V. Normas Internacionales de Producción Agraria; Asociación de Agricultura
Biodinamica de España: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
55. Szeremeta, A.; Ball, K.; Blake, F.; Schlüter, M.; Tuszynski, L. An Evaluation of the First Three Years Looking for
Further Development; No. 834/2007, 889/2008 and 1235/2008; IFOAM EU GROUP: Bruselas, Belgium, 2012.
56. NASAA Organic. NASAA Organic and Biodynamic Standards. 2016. Available online: http://www.nasaa.
com.au/data/pdfs/NASAA%20Organic%20Standard%20Feb%202016.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2016).
57. Sanders, J. Evaluation of the EU Legislation on Organic Farming; Study Report; Thünen Institute of Farm Economics:
Braunschweig, Germany, 2013.
58. Canakci, M.; Akinci, I. Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable production. Energy 2007, 31,
1243–1256. [CrossRef]
59. Esen, M.; Yuksel, T. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable energy sources for heating
a greenhouse. Energy Build. 2013, 65, 340–351. [CrossRef]
60. D’Arpa, S.; Colangelo, G.; Starace, G.; Petrosillo, I.; Bruno, D.E.; Uricchio, V.; Zurlini, G. Heating requirements
in greenhouse farming in southern Italy: Evaluation of ground-source heat pump utilization compared to
traditional heating systems. Energy Effic. 2015, 9, 1065–1085. [CrossRef]
61. Kumar, A.; Singh, A.; Singh, I.; Sud, S.K. Prototype greenhouse environment monitoring system.
In Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong,
China, 17–19 March 2010.
Energies 2016, 9, 866 22 of 23

62. Sun, S.; Zhan, C.; Yang, G.; Yu, Y. Research on A New Technology Integrated Low-Cost, Near-Zero-Energy
Solar Greenhouse. Proc. Eng. 2016, 145, 188–195. [CrossRef]
63. Zhang, H.; Burr, J.; Zhao, F. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of lighting technologies for greenhouse
crop production. J. Clean. Prod. 2016. [CrossRef]
64. Cuce, E.; Harjunowibowo, D.; Mert, C.P. Renewable and sustainable energy saving strategies for greenhouse
systems: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 34–59. [CrossRef]
65. Marucci, A.; Cappuccini, A. Dynamic photovoltaic greenhouse: Energy efficiency in clear sky. Appl. Energy
2016, 170, 362–376. [CrossRef]
66. Sutherland, L.A.; Peter, S.; Zagata, S. Conceptualising multi-regime interactions: The role of the agriculture
sector in renewable energy transitions. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1543–1554. [CrossRef]
67. Portugal-Pereira, J.; Soria, R.; Rathmann, R.; Schaeffer, R.; Szklo, A. Agricultural and agro-industrial
residues-to-energy: Techno-economic and environmental assessment in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 2015,
81, 521–533. [CrossRef]
68. Fiksel, J. Designing Resilient, Sustainable System. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 5330–5339. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
69. Peters, R. New realities, more diverse farms RETHINK promotes innovative strategies to make rural areas
more vibrant. Agrinnovation 2016, 3, 18–19.
70. Knickel, K. Trajectories of agricultural modernization and rural resilience: Some first insights derived from
case studies in 14 countries. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2016, 10, 31–34. [CrossRef]
71. Cairol, D.; Coudel, E.; Knickel, K.; Caron, P.; Kroger, M. Multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas as
reflected in policies: The importance and relevance of the territorial view. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2009, 11,
269–289. [CrossRef]
72. Bryden, J.; Efstratoglou, S.; Ferenczi, K.K.; Johnson, T.; Refsgaard, K.; Thomson, K. Towards Sustainable Rural
Regions in Europe, 1st ed.; Routledge: Abingdon/Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 1–50.
73. Olssone, G.; Rönningen, K.; Hanssen, S.; Wehn, S. The interrelationship of biodiversity and rural viability:
Sustainability assessment, land use scenarios and norwegian mountains in a european context. J. Environ.
Assess. Policy Manag. 2011, 2, 251–284. [CrossRef]
74. Milone, P.; Ventura, F. Networking the Rural: The Future of Green Regions in Europe; Royal Van Gorcum: Assen,
The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 150–165.
75. Knickel, K.; Brunori, G.; Rand, S.; Proost, J. Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes
in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. J. Agric. Educ. Ext.
2009, 15, 131–146. [CrossRef]
76. Agricultura Ecologica Estadisticas 2014; Ministerio de Agricultura Alimentacion y Medio Ambiente: Madrid,
Spain, 2015.
77. Singh, A.S.; Masuku, M.B. Sampling techniques & determination of sample size in applied statistics research:
An overview. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2014, 2, 1–22.
78. Friedman, J. Planning in the Public Domain. From Knowledge to Action; Princeton University Press: Princeton,
NJ, USA, 1987; pp. 182–200.
79. De los Rios, I.; Turek, A.; Gallegos, A. Project Management Competencies for Regional Development in
Romania: Analysis from “Working with People” Model. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2013, 8, 614–621. [CrossRef]
80. Porter, M.E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors; Free Press: New York,
NY, USA, 1980; Republished 1998.
81. Crowder, D.W.; Reganold, J.P. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 12, 7611–7616. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Bravo-Monroy, L.; Potts, S.; Tzanopoulos, J. Drivers influencing farmer decisions for adopting organic or
conventional coffee management practices. Food Policy 2016, 58, 49–61. [CrossRef]
83. Suh, J. Communitarian cooperative organic rice farming in Hongdong District, South Korea. J. Rural Stud.
2015, 37, 29–37. [CrossRef]
84. España Comunica a la UE Unas Necesidades de Fondos de 235 Millones de Euros Para Los Programas Operativos de
Las Organizaciones de Frutas y Hortalizas en 2016; Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente:
Madrid, Spain, 2016. (In Spanish)
85. Ridder, D.; Mostert, E.; Wolters, H.A. Aprender Juntos para Gestionar Juntos. La Mejora de la Participación Publica
en la Gestion del Agua; Instituto de Investigac, Universidad de Osnabrück: Osnabrueck, Germany, 2005.
Energies 2016, 9, 866 23 of 23

86. Dimitri, C.; Greene, C. Organic Food Industry Taps Growing American Market; Economic Research Service;
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
87. Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
88. Sachez, E.; Ragucci, M.; Vassarotti, A. Ethical, Legal and Socio-Economic Aspects of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Biotechnology; An Overview of Research Activities; European Commission, Directorate-General for Research:
Luxembourg, 2002.

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).