Emergy as a Tool to Evaluate Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Ecosystem Services and EME
- provision services: ecosystem services which combined with manufactured, human and social capital produce food, firewood, and fibers etc.;
- regulation services: flood control, water regulation, air quality, pollination and climate control;
- cultural services: provide recreation, cultural identity, and landscape esthetics, among other cultural benefits;
- support services: are characterized by basic ecosystem processes, such as soil formation, nutrient cycling and habitat provision, and are the services required to maintain the first three services.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Bibliometrics Analysis
2.2. Selection of Terms and Timeframe
3. Results
3.1. Number of Publication and Citations
3.2. The Performance of Different Journals
3.3. Country Performance and Academic Collaboration
3.4. Author Performance and Most Cited Papers
4. Discussion
4.1. Economic Valuation Approach and EME
4.2. Integration of EME with the Ecological Footprint, Life Cycle Assessment, Exergy and GIS
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W.W. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind; Universe Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972; ISBN 978-0-87663-165-2. [Google Scholar]
- A Synopsis: Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Academy for Systems Change. Available online: https://donellameadows.org/archives/a-synopsis-limits-to-growth-the-30-year-update/ (accessed on 7 June 2021).
- Farley, J.; Costanza, R. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2060–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.; Brander, L.; van der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat, L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Hein, L.; et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-1-59726-040-4. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, M.S.; Galli, A.; Coscieme, L.; Niccolucci, V.; Lin, D.; Pulselli, F.M.; Bastianoni, S.; Marchettini, N. Exploring ecosystem services assessment through Ecological Footprint accounting. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 30, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Campbell, E.T.; Campbell, D.E.; Wang, C.; Ren, H. Dynamics of ecosystem services provided by subtropical forests in Southeast China during succession as measured by donor and receiver value. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurila-Pant, M.; Lehikoinen, A.; Uusitalo, L.; Venesjärvi, R. How to value biodiversity in environmental management? Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Georgescu-Roegen, N. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process—Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Harvard University Press. Available online: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674281653 (accessed on 7 June 2021).
- Odum, H.T. Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-231-50293-1. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, M.T.; Ulgiati, S. Assessing the global environmental sources driving the geobiosphere: A revised emergy baseline. Ecol. Model. 2016, 339, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, M.T.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy assessment of global renewable sources. Ecol. Model. 2016, 339, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amaral, L.P.; Martins, N.; Gouveia, J.B. A review of emergy theory, its application and latest developments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 882–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassallo, P.; Paoli, C.; Rovere, A.; Montefalcone, M.; Morri, C.; Bianchi, C.N. The value of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica: A natural capital assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 75, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, C.; Sun, M.; Du, A. Measuring ecological capital: State of the art, trends, and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 833–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, S.; Geng, Y.; Liu, W.; Gao, C.; Chen, W. A bibliometric review on natural resource accounting during 1995–2014. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Liu, W.; Geng, Y.; Brown, M.T.; Gao, C.; Wu, R. Recent progress on emergy research: A bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 1051–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, D.; Liu, Z.; Luo, Z.; Webber, M.; Chen, J. Bibliometric and visualized analysis of emergy research. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, S.; Zhu, D.; Chen, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X. Application and problems of emergy evaluation: A systemic review based on bibliometric and content analysis methods. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 114, 106304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulselli, F.M.; Coscieme, L.; Bastianoni, S. Ecosystem services as a counterpart of emergy flows to ecosystems. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 2924–2928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grönlund, E.; Fröling, M.; Carlman, I. Donor values in emergy assessment of ecosystem services. Ecol. Model. 2015, 306, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TEEB Foundations. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/The-Economics-of-Ecosystems-and-Biodiversity-Ecological-and-Economic-Foundations/Kumar/p/book/9780415501088 (accessed on 7 June 2021).
- Zhan, J.; Zhang, F.; Chu, X.; Liu, W.; Zhang, Y. Ecosystem services assessment based on emergy accounting in Chongming Island, Eastern China. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 464–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quental, N.; Lourenço, J.M. References, authors, journals and scientific disciplines underlying the sustainable development literature: A citation analysis. Scientometrics 2012, 90, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Greenhalgh, T.; Peacock, R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. BMJ 2005, 331, 1064–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Coscieme, L.; Pulselli, F.M.; Marchettini, N.; Sutton, P.; Anderson, S.; Sweeney, S.D. Emergy and ecosystem services: A national biogeographical assessment. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 7, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomaz, P.G.; Assad, R.S.; Moreira, L.F.P. Using the Impact Factor and H Index to Assess Researchers and Publications. Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 2011, 96, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Almeida, C.; Mariano, M.; Agostinho, F.; Liu, G.; Giannetti, B. Exploring the potential of urban park size for the provision of ecosystem services to urban centres: A case study in São Paulo, Brazil. Build. Environ. 2018, 144, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoeinghaus, D.J.; Agostinho, A.; Gomes, L.; Pelicice, F.M.; Okada, E.K.; Latini, J.D.; Kashiwaqui, E.A.L.; Winemiller, K. Effects of River Impoundment on Ecosystem Services of Large Tropical Rivers: Embodied Energy and Market Value of Artisanal Fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 1222–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, S.; Li, Z.; Li, W. A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application. Ecol. Model. 2005, 185, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, M.; Hall, D.; Feldpausch-Parker, A.M.; Peterson, T.R. Obscuring Ecosystem Function with Application of the Ecosystem Services Concept. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odum, H.T.; Odum, E.P. The Energetic Basis for Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Ecosystems 2000, 3, 21–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassallo, P.; Paoli, C.; Buonocore, E.; Franzese, P.P.; Russo, G.; Povero, P. Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model. Ecol. Model. 2017, 355, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Häyhä, T.; Franzese, P.P. Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecol. Model. 2014, 289, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rugani, B.; Benetto, E. Improvements to Emergy Evaluations by Using Life Cycle Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 4701–4712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannetti, B.; Barrella, F.; Almeida, C.M.V.B. A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: Ternary diagrams and emergy accounting. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Singh, S.; Bakshi, B. Accounting for Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment, Part I: A Critical Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2232–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, E.T.; Brown, M.J.F. Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 691–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D.; Ohrt, A. Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: Evaluation of Minnesota; USEPA Project Report; EPA/600/R-09/002; USEPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, M.T.; Ulgiati, S. Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odum’s contributions to quantifying and understanding systems. Ecol. Model. 2004, 178, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilley, D.R.; Swank, W.T. EMERGY-based environmental systems assessment of a multi-purpose temperate mixed-forest watershed of the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 69, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, S.; Wu, C. Valuation of mangrove ecosystem services based on emergy: A case study in China. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giannetti, B.; Ogura, Y.; Bonilla, S.H.; Almeida, C. Emergy assessment of a coffee farm in Brazilian Cerrado considering in a broad form the environmental services, negative externalities and fair price. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franzese, P.P.; Buonocore, E.; Donnarumma, L.; Russo, G.F. Natural capital accounting in marine protected areas: The case of the Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano (Central Italy). Ecol. Model. 2017, 360, 290–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R. Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 43, 101096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, L.; Loomis, J.; Kroeger, T.; Casey, F. The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 115, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coscieme, L.; Marchettini, N.; Bastianoni, S.; Pulselli, F.M. Biomes, ecosystem services and emergy: Is there a relationship? Ecosyst. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 144, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berrios, F.; Campbell, D.E.; Ortiz, M. Emergy evaluation of benthic ecosystems influenced by upwelling in northern Chile: Contributions of the ecosystems to the regional economy. Ecol. Model. 2017, 359, 146–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, E.T.; Tilley, D.R. The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 7, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, E.T.; Tilley, D.R. Valuing ecosystem services from Maryland forests using environmental accounting. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 7, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, E.T. Revealed social preference for ecosystem services using the eco-price. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 30, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arbault, D.; Rugani, B.; Tiruta-Barna, L.; Benetto, E. Emergy evaluation of water treatment processes. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 60, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, H.-X.; Xu, H.; Zhang, L.; Chen, W. Ecosystem intrinsic value and its application in decision-making for sustainable development. J. Nat. Conserv. 2019, 49, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, W.; Hu, B.; Sun, N.; Mo, X.; He, M.; Li, H. An integrated full cost model based on extended exergy accounting toward sustainability assessment of industrial production processes. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 1993–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Xiao, H.; Ma, Q.; Yuan, X.; Zuo, J.; Zhang, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, M. Review of Emergy Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment: Coupling Development Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McDougall, R.; Kristiansen, P.; Rader, R. Small-scale urban agriculture results in high yields but requires judicious management of inputs to achieve sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Q.; Liu, G.; Casazza, M.; Campbell, E.T.; Giannetti, B.F.; Brown, M.T. Development of a new framework for non-monetary accounting on ecosystem services valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 34, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Fu, F.; Li, H.; Campbell, D.E.; Ren, H. Eco-exergy and emergy based self-organization of three forest plantations in lower subtropical China. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mellino, S.; Buonocore, E.; Ulgiati, S. The worth of land use: A GIS–emergy evaluation of natural and human-made capital. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 506-507, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pu, J.-W.; Zhao, X.-Q.; Miao, P.-P.; Li, S.-N.; Tan, K.; Wang, Q.; Tang, W. Integrating multisource RS data and GIS techniques to assist the evaluation of resource-environment carrying capacity in karst mountainous area. J. Mt. Sci. 2020, 17, 2528–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastianoni, S.; Coscieme, L.; Caro, D.; Marchettini, N.; Pulselli, F.M. The needs of sustainability: The overarching contribution of systems approach. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 100, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, M.; McDonald, G.; Hardy, D. Is there more in common than we think? Convergence of ecological footprinting, emergy analysis, life cycle assessment and other methods of environmental accounting. Ecol. Model. 2017, 362, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Journal Title | Numbers of Papers | Percentage of Total | Impact Factor (IF) |
---|---|---|---|
Journal of Cleaner Production | 28 | 14.89% | 6.395 |
Ecological Modelling | 25 | 13.30% | 2.363 |
Ecological Indicators | 19 | 10.11% | 4.490 |
Ecosystem Services | 11 | 5.85% | 5.572 |
Science of The Total Environment | 9 | 4.79% | 5.589 |
Sustainability | 9 | 4.79% | 2.075 |
Ecological Engineering | 7 | 3.72% | 3.406 |
Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management | 5 | 2.66% | 0.630 |
Agricultural Systems | 4 | 2.13% | 4.131 |
Environment Science and Pollution Research | 3 | 1.60% | 3.306 |
Country | Total Publications | Percentage of Total |
---|---|---|
China | 93 | 49.5% |
Italy | 57 | 30.3% |
USA | 44 | 23.4% |
Brazil | 22 | 11.7% |
Luxembourg | 9 | 4.8% |
France | 7 | 3.7% |
Spain | 7 | 3.7% |
Sweden | 7 | 3.7% |
Australia | 5 | 2.7% |
Denmark | 5 | 2.7% |
Institute | Total Publications | Country |
---|---|---|
Beijing Normal University | 40 | China |
Parthenope University, Naples | 40 | Italy |
Chinese Academy of Sciences | 21 | China |
Universidade Paulista | 14 | Brazil |
State University System of Florida | 12 | USA |
United States Environmental Protection Agency | 12 | USA |
University of Florida | 12 | USA |
Beijing Engn Res Ctr Watershed Environm Restorat | 11 | China |
Shanghai Jiao Tong University | 11 | China |
University of Siena | 10 | Italy |
Author | Country | Total Publications | Percentage of Total |
---|---|---|---|
S. Ulgiati | Italy | 22 | 11.7% |
B.F. Giannetti | Brazil | 14 | 7.4% |
P.P. Franzese | Italy | 14 | 7.4% |
G.Y. Liu | China | 14 | 7.4% |
E. Buonocore | Italy | 11 | 5.8% |
Geng Y | China | 10 | 5.3% |
Almeida C.M.V.B. | Brazil | 9 | 4.8% |
B. Rugani | Luxemburg | 9 | 4.8% |
Agostinho F. | Brazil | 8 | 4.3% |
S. Bastianoni | Italy | 8 | 4.3% |
Title | Year | Citations | Author | Journal |
---|---|---|---|---|
Accounting for Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment, Part I: A Critical Review | 2010 | 131 | Zhang, Y.; Singh, S.; Bakshi, B. R. | Environmental Science & Technology |
Effects of River Impoundment on Ecosystem Services of Large Tropical Rivers: Embodied Energy and Market Value of Artisanal Fisheries | 2009 | 126 | Hoeinghaus, D. J.; Agostinho, A. A.; Gomes, L. C.; Pelicice, F. M.; Okada, Edson K.; Latini, J. D.; Kashiwaqui, E. A. L.; Winemiller, K. O. | Conservation Biology |
A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application | 2005 | 114 | Zhao, S; Li, ZZ; Li, WL | Ecological Modelling |
Obscuring Ecosystem Function with Application of the Ecosystem Services Concept | 2010 | 98 | Peterson, M. J.; Hall, D. M.; Feldpausch-P., Andrea M.; Peterson, T. R. | Conservation Biology |
A thermodynamic framework for ecologically conscious process systems engineering | 2002 | 83 | Bakshi, BR | Computers & Chemical Engineering |
The energetic basis for valuation of ecosystem services | 2000 | 83 | Odum, HT; Odum, EP | Ecosystems |
The value of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica: A natural capital assessment | 2013 | 77 | Vassallo, P.; Paoli, C.; Rovere, A.; Montefalcone, M.; Morri, C.; Bianchi, C.N. | Marine Pollution Bulletin |
Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective | 2014 | 76 | Hayha, T.; Franzese, P. P. | Ecological Modelling |
Improvements to Emergy Evaluations by Using Life Cycle Assessment | 2012 | 69 | Rugani, B.; Benetto, E. | Environmental Science & Technology |
A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting | 2006 | 66 | Giannetti, BF; Barrella, FA; Almeida, CMVB | Journal of Cleaner Production |
Methodology | Reference | Strengths | Weakness |
---|---|---|---|
Economic evaluation (we consider methods that mainly contain mathematical methods such as market prices, benefit transfer, the eco-price and simulations etc.) | Lu et al. [10]; Campbell and Tilley [53]; Pulselli et al. [23] | The values obtained are easy to understand by both the general public and the public authorities. The various methodologies can be used for any type of natural resource, in any location. | The monetary value may not represent the true value of the natural resources. The inevitable estimates and transfers of values between locations increase the uncertainties of the results. |
EF | Mancini et al. [9] Zhang et al. [41] | Excellent communication tool with the general public. | It cannot account for all ecosystem services, only those generally measured by hectares. |
LCA | Wang et al. [59]; Rugani et al. [39]; Zhang et al. [41] | The use of emergy indicators in LCA models can improve UEV quality. The analysis process is quantitative, detailed and accurate. | Used only to assess system sustainability. The emergy focuses on the donor´s view, and the LCA on the user’s view. The combination of the two methodologies has not yet received unanimous approval. |
Exergy/eco-exergy | Lu et al. [62]; Zhang et al. [41]; Bastianoni et al. [65] | Based on thermodynamics and has been used to understand ecosystem dynamics. Both have the equivalent of solar energy as a conversion factor. | Still cannot capture differences in the quality of very different resources, such as renewable and non-renewable. The exergy calculations are much more complex. |
GIS | Mellino et al. [63] | Useful tool for environmental planning and natural resource management. | To obtain economic values, it must be integrated with other methodologies. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nadalini, A.C.V.; Kalid, R.d.A.; Torres, E.A. Emergy as a Tool to Evaluate Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137102
Nadalini ACV, Kalid RdA, Torres EA. Emergy as a Tool to Evaluate Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137102
Chicago/Turabian StyleNadalini, Ana Carolina V., Ricardo de Araujo Kalid, and Ednildo Andrade Torres. 2021. "Emergy as a Tool to Evaluate Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137102