Sustainability Evaluation and Optimization on the Modern Agro-Pastoral Circular System Integrating Emergy Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Object
2.1.1. Original System
2.1.2. Optimized System
2.2. Data Source
2.2.1. System Boundary
2.2.2. Inventory of Input and Output
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Solar Emergy
2.3.2. Characterization
2.3.3. Standardization
2.3.4. Weighted Summation
2.3.5. Pollution Degradation
2.3.6. Comprehensive Index System
3. Results
3.1. Emergy Structure
3.2. Potential Environmental Impact
3.3. Environmental Service Emergy
3.4. Comprehensive Evaluation
4. Discussion
- Cereal cropping subsystem: To ensure the implementation of steady grain production capacity, the planting area of rice and wheat throughout the year was not adjusted. In terms of material-energy circulation, the present straw collection was insufficient. Therefore, it was suggested to regulate the variety layout, stubble management, and harvest support links, and then the annual straw supply could be increased by 4.50 × 105 kg. As for environmental impact, the fertilization process was an important source. Thus, it was proposed to expand the application area of sheep manure organic fertilizer to improve the local fertilizer substitution rate on the premise of the increasing yield of sheep manure organic fertilizer.
- Feed producing subsystem: The primary task was to absorb straw waste from the cereal cropping subsystem and then to convert it into roughage for supplying the sheep raising subsystem. The current production scale of this subsystem was too large in the whole circular system in Donglin Village, and its environmental impact was obvious. Therefore, it was suggested to decrease the daily yield to 3.15 × 103 kg, which could not only efficiently utilize straw collected from the cereal cropping subsystem but also provide roughage for the sheep raising subsystem.
- Sheep raising subsystem: The high potential environmental impact restricted the sustainable development of the original system. Therefore, it was proposed to further refine the feed formula and improve its conversion ratio in the feeding process. Moreover, necessary pollution disposal links should be amplified to reduce the potential environmental impact.
- Manure composting subsystem: The primary task was to absorb manure waste from the sheep raising subsystem and to convert it into organic fertilizer for supplying the cereal cropping subsystem. But at present, the sheep manure was not fully disposed, and the organic fertilizer was not adequately furnished. Hence, it was suggested to increase the daily yield to 1.50 × 104 kg, which could consume the excrement emissions of the sheep raising subsystem to offer organic fertilizer for the cereal cropping subsystem, on the basis of its indistinctive environmental impact.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Input\Output | Item/Unit | Original System | Optimized System | Source | Unit Emergy Value/(sej/Unit) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Input of cereal cropping subsystem | Rain, chemical potentiality/J | 9.32 × 1012 | 9.32 × 1012 | a | 2.37 × 104 [36] |
Erosion, topsoil/J | 1.17 × 1011 | 1.17 × 1011 | a | 9.40 × 104 [36] | |
Ground water/J | 3.19 × 1012 | 3.19 × 1012 | a | 2.06 × 105 [36] | |
Seed/J | 3.95 × 1011 | 3.95 × 1011 | a | 2.54 × 105 [37] | |
Substrate/g | 1.08 × 108 | 1.08 × 108 | a | 3.43 × 106 [37] | |
Tray/¥ | 3.50 × 104 | 3.50 × 104 | a | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Nitrogenous fertilizer/g | 5.21 × 107 | 4.96 × 107 | a | 4.83 × 109 [10] | |
Phosphatic fertilizer/g | 1.16 × 107 | 1.12 × 107 | a | 4.96 × 109 [10] | |
Potash fertilizer/g | 1.84 × 107 | 1.77 × 107 | a | 1.40 × 109 [10] | |
Organic fertilizer (produced)/J | 2.71 × 1013 | 7.42 × 1013 | a | - | |
Organic fertilizer (purchased)/g | 9.93 × 108 | 0.00 | a | 3.43 × 106 [37] | |
Pesticide/¥ | 1.53 × 106 | 1.53 × 106 | a | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Electricity/J | 5.54 × 1011 | 4.65 × 1011 | b | 2.21 × 105 [36] | |
Diesel/J | 1.49 × 1012 | 1.47 × 1012 | c | 8.39 × 104 [36] | |
Machinery/¥ | 4.70 × 105 | 4.70 × 105 | d | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Labor/J | 5.42 × 109 | 5.42 × 109 | a | 4.83 × 105 [38] | |
Greenhouse (depreciation)/¥ | 1.20 × 105 | 1.20 × 105 | e | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Maintenance/¥ | 8.00 × 103 | 8.00 × 103 | f | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Input of feed producing subsystem | Solar energy/J | 4.62 × 1013 | 4.62 × 1012 | a | 1.00 [36] |
Straw (produced)/J | 1.16 × 1013 | 1.08 × 1013 | a | - | |
Straw (purchased)/J | 2.25 × 1014 | 0.00 | a | 4.96 × 104 [10] | |
Plastic film/¥ | 1.69 × 106 | 1.73 × 105 | a | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Microbial agent/¥ | 9.79 × 104 | 4.47 × 103 | a | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Bean residue/g | 4.90 × 109 | 2.23 × 108 | a | 3.43 × 106 [37] | |
Molasses/J | 5.45 × 1012 | 2.49 × 1011 | a | 1.08 × 105 [37] | |
Electricity/J | 4.40 × 1012 | 2.84 × 1011 | b | 2.21 × 105 [36] | |
Diesel/J | 9.14 × 1011 | 3.61 × 1011 | c | 8.39 × 104 [36] | |
Labor/J | 5.44 × 1010 | 7.33 × 109 | a | 4.83 × 105 [38] | |
Feed plant (depreciation)/¥ | 2.25 × 106 | 2.25 × 105 | e | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Maintenance/¥ | 4.50 × 105 | 4.50 × 104 | f | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Input of sheep raising subsystem | Solar energy/J | 1.16 × 1014 | 1.16 × 1014 | a | 1.00 [36] |
Corn/J | 4.16 × 1013 | 4.16 × 1013 | a | 1.06 × 105 [10] | |
Bean residue 1/J | 2.40 × 1013 | 1.92 × 1013 | a | 9.17 × 104 [11] | |
Bean residue 2/g | 3.19 × 109 | 3.33 × 109 | a | 3.43 × 106 [37] | |
Roughage (produced)/J | 1.02 × 1013 | 1.84 × 1013 | a | - | |
Concentrated feed/g | 3.15 × 104 | 3.15 × 104 | a | 8.64 × 1013 [39] | |
Veterinary drug/¥ | 2.07 × 104 | 2.07 × 104 | a | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Disinfectant/g | 1.28 × 107 | 1.28 × 107 | a | 1.27 × 109 [11] | |
Tap water/J | 1.74 × 1011 | 1.74 × 1011 | a | 8.39 × 105 [37] | |
Electricity/J | 1.29 × 1012 | 1.25 × 1012 | b | 2.21 × 105 [36] | |
Diesel/J | 2.16 × 1011 | 2.07 × 1011 | c | 8.39 × 104 [36] | |
Labor/J | 3.14 × 1010 | 3.14 × 1010 | a | 4.83 × 105 [37] | |
Sheep farm (depreciation)/¥ | 1.75 × 106 | 1.75 × 106 | e | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Maintenance/¥ | 3.50 × 105 | 3.50 × 105 | f | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Input of manure composting subsystem | Solar energy/J | 1.74 × 1013 | 3.48 × 1013 | a | 1.00 [36] |
Manure (produced)/J | 1.71 × 1013 | 4.67 × 1013 | a | - | |
Straw (produced)/J | 0.00 | 7.25 × 1012 | a | ||
Straw (purchased)/J | 2.65 × 1012 | 0.00 | a | 4.96 × 104 [10] | |
Fungus residue/J | 2.51 × 109 | 6.88 × 109 | a | 4.83 × 105 [39] | |
Rice bran/J | 4.76 × 1012 | 1.30 × 1013 | a | 6.35 × 104 [11] | |
Tobacco ash/J | 6.08 × 109 | 1.66 × 1010 | a | 6.44 × 104 [40] | |
Electricity/J | 8.34 × 1011 | 1.66 × 1012 | b | 2.21 × 105 [25] | |
Diesel/J | 1.69 × 1011 | 3.35 × 1011 | c | 8.39 × 104 [36] | |
Labor/J | 1.05 × 1010 | 2.09 × 1010 | a | 4.83 × 105 [38] | |
Fertilizer factory (depreciation)/¥ | 1.65 × 105 | 3.30 × 105 | e | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Maintenance/¥ | 3.30 × 104 | 6.60 × 104 | f | 2.74 × 1011 [24] | |
Output of subsystems | Grains/J | 2.63 × 1013 | 2.63 × 1013 | a | - |
Straw/J | 1.16 × 1013 | 1.80 × 1013 | a | - | |
Roughage/J | 4.03 × 1014 | 1.84 × 1013 | a | - | |
Mutton/J | 3.97 × 1012 | 3.97 × 1012 | a | - | |
Manure/J | 4.67 × 1013 | 4.67 × 1013 | a | - | |
Organic fertilizer/J | 2.71 × 1013 | 7.42 × 1013 | a | - |
References
- Li, F.J.; Dong, S.C.; Li, F. A system dynamics model for analyzing the eco-agriculture system with policy recommendations. Ecol. Model. 2012, 227, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donner, M.; Verniquet, A.; Broeze, J.; Kayser, K.; De Vries, H. Critical success and risk factors for circular business models valorising agricultural waste and by-products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 165, 105236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Min, Q.; Jiao, W.; Liu, C.; Yin, J. Integrated emergy and economic evaluation of Huzhou mulberry-dyke and fish-pond systems. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ren, W.; Hu, L.; Guo, L.; Zhang, J.; Tang, L.; Zhang, E.; Zhang, J.; Luo, S.; Tang, J.; Chen, X. Preservation of the genetic diversity of a local common carp in the agricultural heritage rice–fish system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E546–E554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, H.; Yu, D.; Zhou, J.; Zhai, S.; Bian, X.; Weih, M. Rice-duck co-culture for reducing negative impacts of biogas slurry application in rice production systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 213, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, W.; Dong, X.; Wei, H.; Weng, B.; Liang, L.; Xu, Z.; Wang, X.; Wu, F.; Chen, Z.; Jin, Y.; et al. Is it true that the longer the extended industrial chain, the better the circular agriculture? A case study of circular agriculture industry company in Fuqing, Fujian. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adegbeye, M.J.; Ravi Kanth Reddy, P.; Obaisi, A.I.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Oyebamiji, K.J.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Morakinyo-Fasipe, O.T.; Cipriano-Salazar, M.; Camacho-Díaz, L.M. Sustainable agriculture options for production, greenhouse gasses and pollution alleviation, and nutrient recycling in emerging and transitional nations-An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Sun, M.; Zhang, L. Research Progress of life cycle assessment on agriculture. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 422–433. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Odum, H.T. Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Environmental Decision Making; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X. An Integrated Framework Based on Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Evaluation for Circular Agriculture: Theories, Methods and Cases. Ph.D. Thesis, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China, 25 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Su, Y.; He, S.; Wang, K.; Shahtahmassebi, A.R.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, M.; Gan, M. Quantifying the sustainability of three types of agricultural production in China: An emergy analysis with the integration of environmental pollution. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patrizi, N.; Niccolucci, V.; Castellini, C.; Pulselli, F.M. Sustainability of agro-livestock integration: Implications and results of Emergy evaluation. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622, 1543–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Ma, Z.; Ma, Q.; Yuan, X.; Mu, R.; Zuo, J.; Zhang, J.; Wang, S. Comprehensive evaluation and optimization of agricultural system: An emergy approach. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 107, 105650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W.; Zhang, P.; Xu, Z.; Wei, H.; Lu, N.; Wang, X.; Weng, B.; Chen, Z.; Wu, F.; Dong, X. Life cycle environmental impact assessment of circular agriculture: A case study in Fuqing, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dorr, E.; Koegler, M.; Gabrielle, B.; Aubry, C. Life cycle assessment of a circular, urban mushroom farm. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 288, 125668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goglio, P.; Smith, W.N.; Worth, D.E.; Grant, B.B.; Desjardins, R.L.; Chen, W.; Tenuta, M.; McConkey, B.G.; Williams, A.; Burgess, P. Development of Crop. LCA, an adaptable screening life cycle assessment tool for agricultural systems: A Canadian scenario assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3770–3780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, X.L.; Liu, X.X.; Sui, P.; Chen, Y.Q. Current problems and proposed solutions of emergy evaluation in agricultural systems. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2020, 28, 503–512. [Google Scholar]
- Institute of Agricultural Sciences in Taihu Lake Region of Jiangsu. Production technology of modern “Straw–Sheep–Cropland” agro-pastoral circular model. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 2017, 45, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Suzhou Bureau of Statistics, Suzhou Investigation Team of the National Bureau of Statistics. Suzhou Statistical Yearbook 2019; China Statistical Press: Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Suzhou Bureau of Statistics, Suzhou Investigation Team of the National Bureau of Statistics. Suzhou Statistical Yearbook 2020; China Statistical Press: Beijing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, H.; Zhang, G.; Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; Wan, H. Time series variation characteristics and parameterization of land surface albedo in several typical land cover types. J. Beijing Norm. Univ. Nat. Sci. 2019, 55, 272–283. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Z.F.; Jiang, M.M.; Chen, B.; Zhou, J.B.; Chen, G.Q.; Li, S.C. Solar emergy evaluation for Chinese economy. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 875–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciroth, A.; Di Noi, C.; Lohse, T.; Srocka, M. OpenLCA 1. 10 Comprehensive User Manual; GreenDelta: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno Ruiz, E.; FitzGerald, D.; Symeonidis, A.; Wernet, G. Technical Report of Changes Implemented in the Ecoinvent Database between v3.7 & v3.7.1; Ecoinvent Association: Zürich, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- CML-IA Characterisation Factors. Available online: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-output/science/cml-ia-characterisation-factors (accessed on 15 August 2020).
- World Population Prospects 2019. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/ (accessed on 14 September 2020).
- Wang, M.; Wu, W.; Liu, W.; Bao, Y. Life cycle assessment of the winter wheat-summer maize production system on the North China Plain. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2007, 14, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.L.; Dadouma, A.; Chen, Y.; Sui, P.; Gao, W.; Jia, L. Sustainability evaluation of the large-scale pig farming system in North China: An emergy analysis based on life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 102, 144–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Environmental Protection Agency, PRC. HJ/T332—2006 Environmental Quality Evaluation Standards for Farmland of Edible Agricultural Products; China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Environmental Protection, PRC. HJ568—2010 Farmland Environmental Quality Evaluation Standards for Livestock and Poultry Production; China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Environmental Protection, PRC. HJ25.3—2014 Technical Guidelines for Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sites; China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, PRC. GB18468—2001 Hygienic Standard for P-dichlorobenzene in Indoor Air; Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- National Environmental Protection Agency, PRC. GB8978—1996 Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standard; China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, D.E.; Brandt-Williams, S.L.; Meisch, M.E.A. Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: Evaluation of the State of West Virginia; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division: Narragansett, RI, USA, 2005.
- Lan, S.; Qin, P.; Lu, H. Emergy Analysis of Eco-Economic System; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Brandt-Williams, S.L. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #4 Emergy of Florida Agriculture; Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, P. Mode, Impact Factors, and Efficiency Evaluation for Development of Circular Agriculture—Based on the Practice in Pinghu of Zhejiang Province. Ph.D. Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 31 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, W.; Chen, Y. Agroecology; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, L. Environmental Impact Assessment of Circular Agriculture Based on Life Cycle Assessment: Methods and Case Studies. Ph.D. Thesis, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China, 31 May 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, Y.; Wang, H.; Tao, Y.; Lu, C.; Dong, L.; Shi, L.; Jin, M.; Zhou, X.; Shen, M. Regulation of modern “straw-sheep-cropland” agro-pastoral system using life cycle assessment. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2021, 37, 266–274. [Google Scholar]
Environmental Impact | Unit | Standardization | Weight |
---|---|---|---|
Acidification potential (AP) | kg SO2-eq | 39.06 | 0.19 |
Global warming potential (GWP) | kg CO2-eq | 6908.81 | 0.17 |
Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE) | kg 1,4-DCB-eq | 178.76 | 0.13 |
Human toxicity (HT) | kg 1,4-DCB-eq | 421.78 | 0.19 |
Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FAE) | kg 1,4-DCB-eq | 386.74 | 0.15 |
Eutrophication potential (EP) | kg PO4-eq | 25.90 | 0.17 |
Hierarchy | Index | Expression | Explanation |
---|---|---|---|
Reduction | Total input demand (TID) | Et/Eo | Emergy demand of effective output for the total input |
Economic resource demand (ERD) | F/Eo | Emergy demand of effective output for economic resources | |
Purchased resource demand (PRD) | Fp/Eo | Emergy demand of effective output for purchased resources | |
Fossil energy demand (FED) | FF/Eo | Emergy demand of effective output for fossil energy | |
Reuse | Renewable environmental resource ratio (RERR) | Re/Eo | Use ratio of renewable environmental resources to effective output |
Circulating material-energy ratio (CMR) | Rm/Eo | Use ratio of internal circulating material and energy to effective output | |
Labor ratio (LR) | Rl/Eo | Use ratio of labor to effective output | |
Unrenewable resource ratio (URR) | N/Eo | Use ratio of unrenewable resources to effective output | |
Controllability | Air pollution degradation index (APDI) | EA/Eo | Emergy index of pollution degradation in air to effective output |
Water pollution degradation index (WPDI) | EW/Eo | Emergy index of pollution degradation in water to effective output | |
Soil pollution degradation index (SPDI) | ES/Eo | Emergy index of pollution degradation in soil to effective output | |
Composite environmental impact index (CEII) | EI/Eo | The composite index of potential environmental impacts for effective output | |
Sustainability | Emergy self-sufficiency ratio (ESR) | L/Et | Self-organizing ability during system operation |
Emergy yield ratio (EYR) | Ey/F | Contribution of system operation to economic resources | |
Environmental loading ratio (ELR) | N/R | Pressure caused by system operation on the surrounding environment | |
Emergy sustainability index (ESI) | EYR/ELR | Degree of sustainable development of system operation |
Potential Environmental Impact | AP | GWP | TE | HT | FAE | EP | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Original system | Cereal cropping subsystem | 21.12 | 50.26 | 1.31 | 264.84 | 147.80 | 9.20 | 494.53 |
Feed producing subsystem | 232.37 | 231.61 | 25.61 | 2419.72 | 1509.46 | 349.48 | 4768.25 | |
Sheep raising subsystem | 232.05 | 248.16 | 215.46 | 1084.32 | 1136.12 | 330.36 | 4415.20 | |
Organic composting subsystem | 19.58 | 29.73 | 5.75 | 130.40 | 100.21 | 13.99 | 299.66 | |
The whole system | 505.13 | 559.77 | 248.12 | 3899.27 | 2893.59 | 703.03 | 9977.64 | |
Optimized system | Cereal cropping subsystem | 18.76 | 47.36 | 1.22 | 236.66 | 132.85 | 8.24 | 445.10 |
Feed producing subsystem | 12.26 | 12.30 | 1.37 | 191.25 | 117.31 | 17.25 | 351.73 | |
Sheep raising subsystem | 207.21 | 221.96 | 174.53 | 1023.67 | 1057.09 | 293.38 | 2977.84 | |
Organic composting subsystem | 62.42 | 93.43 | 16.03 | 414.47 | 300.42 | 40.50 | 927.26 | |
The whole system | 300.65 | 375.05 | 193.15 | 1866.05 | 1607.67 | 359.36 | 4701.92 |
Item | AP | GWP | TE | HT | FAE | EP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicator pollutant | SO2 | CO2 | 1,4-DCB | 1,4-DCB | 1,4-DCB | PO4 | |
Reference standard | HJT 335—2006 [31] | HJ 568—2010 [32] | HJ 25.3—2014 [33] | GB 18468—2001 [34] | GB 8976—1996 [35] | GB 8976—1996 [35] | |
Threshold concentration | 0.05 mg/m3 | 750 mg/m3 | 0.07 mg/(kg·d) | 1.00 mg/m3 | 0.60 mg/L | 1.00 (P) mg/L | |
Environment to degrade pollution | Air | Air | Soil | Air | Water | Water | |
Original system | Cereal cropping | 1.42 × 1012 | 4.64 × 1010 | 7.97 × 1014 | 9.59 × 1012 | 7.29 × 1019 | 5.45 × 1016 |
Feed producing | 1.56 × 1013 | 2.14 × 1011 | 1.56 × 1016 | 8.76 × 1013 | 7.44 × 1020 | 2.07 × 1018 | |
Sheep raising | 1.44 × 1013 | 2.29 × 1011 | 1.29 × 1017 | 3.93 × 1013 | 5.60 × 1020 | 1.83 × 1018 | |
Manure composting | 1.31 × 1012 | 2.74 × 1010 | 3.51 × 1015 | 4.72 × 1012 | 4.94 × 1019 | 8.29 × 1016 | |
The whole system | 3.27 × 1013 | 5.17 × 1011 | 1.49 × 1017 | 1.41 × 1014 | 1.43 × 1021 | 4.04 × 1018 | |
Optimized system | Cereal cropping | 1.26 × 1012 | 4.37 × 1010 | 7.44 × 1014 | 8.57 × 1012 | 6.55 × 1019 | 4.88 × 1016 |
Feed producing | 8.22 × 1011 | 1.13 × 1010 | 8.33 × 1014 | 6.93 × 1012 | 5.78 × 1019 | 1.02 × 1017 | |
Sheep raising | 1.39 × 1013 | 2.05 × 1011 | 1.06 × 1017 | 3.71 × 1013 | 5.21 × 1020 | 1.74 × 1018 | |
Manure composting | 4.19 × 1012 | 8.62 × 1010 | 9.78 × 1015 | 1.50 × 1013 | 1.48 × 1020 | 2.40 × 1017 | |
The whole system | 2.02 × 1013 | 3.46 × 1011 | 1.18 × 1017 | 6.76 × 1013 | 7.92 × 1020 | 2.13 × 1018 |
Hierarchy | Index | Original System | Optimized System | Change Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Reduction | TID | 1.19 | 1.02 | −14.27% |
ERD | 1.16 | 1.01 | −13.49% | |
PRD | 0.88 | 0.23 | −74.24% | |
FED | 6.23 × 10−2 | 1.94 × 10−2 | −68.90% | |
Reuse | RERR | 8.17 × 10−3 | 4.73 × 10−3 | −42.08% |
CMR | 0.28 | 0.78 | 176.17% | |
LR | 6.40 × 10−2 | 2.14 × 10−2 | −66.49% | |
URR | 0.86 | 0.34 | −61.23% | |
Controllability | APDI | 5.18 × 10−6 | 1.44 × 10−6 | −72.28% |
WPDI | 52.32 | 16.84 | −67.82% | |
SPDI | 5.47 × 10−3 | 2.50 × 10−3 | −54.26% | |
CEII | 3.22 × 10−16 | 9.99 × 10−17 | −68.93% | |
Sustainability | ESR | 9.39 × 10−3 | 2.02 × 10−2 | 115.18% |
EYR | 0.82 | 0.98 | 19.67% | |
ELR | 7.65 | 6.57 | −14.20% | |
ESI | 0.11 | 0.12 | 39.48% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Shen, Y.; Shi, L.; Tao, Y.; Wang, H.; Lu, C.; Li, S.; Shen, M. Sustainability Evaluation and Optimization on the Modern Agro-Pastoral Circular System Integrating Emergy Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094890
Shen Y, Shi L, Tao Y, Wang H, Lu C, Li S, Shen M. Sustainability Evaluation and Optimization on the Modern Agro-Pastoral Circular System Integrating Emergy Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):4890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094890
Chicago/Turabian StyleShen, Yuan, Linlin Shi, Yueyue Tao, Haihou Wang, Changying Lu, Siyuan Li, and Mingxing Shen. 2022. "Sustainability Evaluation and Optimization on the Modern Agro-Pastoral Circular System Integrating Emergy Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 4890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094890