Next Article in Journal
Modeling the Transformation of Configuration Management Processes in a Multi-Project Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Biomaterials and Regenerative Agriculture: A Methodological Framework to Enable Circular Transitions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Renewable Energy and Sustainable Agriculture: Review of Indicators

by
Ahmad Bathaei
and
Dalia Štreimikienė
*
Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Institute of Economics and Rural Development, A. Vivulskio g. 4A-13, LT-03220 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14307; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914307
Submission received: 21 August 2023 / Revised: 21 September 2023 / Accepted: 25 September 2023 / Published: 28 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Resources and Sustainable Utilization)

Abstract

:
Sustainable agriculture strives to ensure future food and energy supply while safeguarding natural resources. The interpretation of sustainability varies by context and country, yielding distinct indicators. Researchers have studied sustainable agriculture for the past 25 years and have developed several indicators. Renewable energy holds a vital role in sustainable agriculture, aiding energy needs and mitigating environmental harm tied to agriculture. It curbs fossil fuel dependency and harnesses agricultural waste for energy. However, a consistent update of renewable energy indicators for agricultural sustainability is needed. Employing SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodologies within the PRISMA protocol, this study extracts 84 indicators from 420 papers via SCOPUS. These indicators span social, environmental, economic, institutional, and technical dimensions. The study refines these indicators based on significance and influence, offering an enriched perspective. Furthermore, the analysis categorizes papers by publication year, continent, and topic, providing insights for stakeholders, policymakers, and researchers. By ensuring periodic indicator updates, this research promotes sustainable agriculture, informs priority areas, and guides strategic decisions. This contributes to global resilience and food security aspirations in a changing world. The future of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture will involve cutting-edge technologies, refined policy frameworks, and inclusive cross-sector collaboration to address pressing global challenges and create a greener, more resilient world.

1. Introduction

Our lives are not possible without agriculture, which is the foundation of both our food supply and our ability to survive [1]. It includes the raising of livestock; the cultivation of crops; and the production of food, fiber, and other agricultural goods. We would not have access to a wide variety of healthy foods that are vital to our wellbeing without agriculture. It offers the building blocks for a nutritious and balanced diet, supporting our physical development, growth, and general well-being [2].
Additionally, agriculture contributes to our economies and ways of life in addition to just producing food. Particularly in rural areas where farming and related professions are common, it is a significant source of employment [3]. Along the entire value chain, from farmers and laborers to processors, distributors, and retailers, agriculture generates employment opportunities. Additionally, it promotes economic expansion through trade and exports, boosting national prosperity and promoting food security on a global scale [4].
Additionally, agriculture is vital to the sustainability of our planet and the development of our environment. Sustainable agricultural methods encourage soil health, biodiversity, and water conservation [5]. Farmers can lessen the use of harmful pesticides and fertilizers, stop soil erosion, and preserve natural resources by implementing sustainable techniques like organic farming, agroforestry, and precision agriculture. Through techniques like biofuel production and the use of agricultural waste for energy generation, agriculture also has the potential to contribute to the production of renewable energy, assisting in the transition to a greener and more sustainable future [6].
Sustainable agriculture emphasizes the use of integrated pest management (IPM) techniques to control weeds, diseases, and pests. Crop rotation, biological control strategies, habitat diversification, and the selective use of pesticides only when necessary are a few of the techniques used in this process. IPM seeks to manage pests effectively while using fewer synthetic chemicals [7]. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on non-renewable resources, sustainable agriculture encourages energy-efficient practices and the use of renewable energy sources. It encourages the adoption of energy-efficient technologies, renewable energy systems (such as solar or wind power), and the utilization of agricultural byproducts for bioenergy production [8].
Sustainable agriculture considers the well-being of farmers, farm workers, and local communities. It supports fair labor practices, equitable trade relationships, and the development of local food systems. By implementing sustainable agriculture, it fosters community engagement, knowledge sharing, and capacity building to ensure the social and economic viability of farming communities [9,10].
In summary, sustainable agriculture is crucial for environmental preservation, food security, economic resilience, climate change adaptation, and social equity. By adopting sustainable practices, we can create a more resilient and sustainable food system that meets the needs of present and future generations while safeguarding the planet’s resources [11].
To meet the energy needs of agricultural operations, sustainable energy in this context refers to the use of clean renewable energy sources. It entails shifting away from fossil fuels and toward more sustainable substitutes [12]. Sustainable energy in agriculture involves harnessing renewable energy sources such as solar power, wind energy, biomass, and hydropower. Solar energy can be utilized through photovoltaic systems to generate electricity for powering farm operations, water pumps, and irrigation systems. Particularly in places with good wind conditions, wind turbines can generate electricity on farms [13]. Agricultural waste, animal waste, or crops specifically bred to be used as fuel for the production of heat and power can all be sources of biomass energy. To produce clean electricity, hydropower can be harnessed from streams or small-scale water systems [14].
In order to maximize energy use and reduce waste, sustainable energy in agriculture also emphasizes energy efficiency measures. Adopting energy-efficient machinery, equipment, and irrigation systems is part of this. Energy-efficient technologies, such as LED lighting, insulation, and smart controls, can be incorporated into the design and retrofit of farm buildings and infrastructure. Energy audits can aid in locating inefficient energy uses and direct farmers toward energy-saving practices [15].
Through procedures like anaerobic digestion or biomass gasification, agricultural waste and byproducts, such as crop residues, animal manure, and waste from the food processing industry, can be converted into bioenergy. Biogas is a renewable energy source that can be used to generate electricity and heat, and is created by anaerobic digestion [16]. In the process of biomass gasification, organic materials are transformed into a combustible gas that can either be burned directly or further processed to produce biofuels. Farmers can manage waste efficiently, cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and support the circular economy by using bioenergy made from agricultural waste [17].
By adopting sustainable energy practices in agriculture, farmers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease reliance on non-renewable energy sources, and contribute to climate change mitigation [18]. Sustainable energy solutions in agriculture not only benefit the environment, but also offer cost savings, energy independence, and increased resilience to volatile energy markets. They promote a more sustainable and resilient agricultural sector while supporting the transition to a low-carbon and energy-efficient future [19].
Relying on renewable energy sources in agriculture provides greater energy independence. Farmers can generate their energy, reducing dependence on external energy suppliers and mitigating the risks associated with fluctuating energy prices [20]. Renewable energy systems are often modular and scalable, allowing farmers to expand energy production as needed. This enhances the resilience of agricultural operations, ensuring a stable energy supply even in remote or off-grid areas [21].
The relationship between agriculture, renewable energy, and sustainable agriculture is intricate and interdependent, contributing significantly to a more resilient and environmentally friendly food production system. First, agriculture is a substantial energy consumer, comprising around 30% of the global energy consumption [22]. The heavy reliance on fossil fuels for tasks such as mechanized farming, irrigation, and transportation not only raises concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, but also exposes the sector to energy price volatility. The integration of renewable energy sources, like solar panels, wind turbines, and bioenergy into agriculture, offers a sustainable solution [23]. These renewable technologies can power irrigation systems, provide electricity to farms, and even harness energy from agricultural residues, reducing emissions and lowering energy costs for farmers while aligning with global climate mitigation goals [24].
Secondly, the relationship between energy and sustainable agriculture extends beyond the adoption of renewable sources. Sustainable agriculture practices aim to minimize environmental impact and enhance long-term productivity, and energy plays a pivotal role in achieving these goals [25]. Energy-efficient technologies, such as precision agriculture and improved irrigation systems, can optimize resource use, reduce waste, and lower emissions [26]. Moreover, renewable energy systems can offer decentralized and reliable power sources to rural agricultural communities, increasing their resilience to external disruptions while creating economic opportunities [27]. In this context, the synergy between energy and sustainable agriculture is integral to building a more environmentally conscious, economically viable, and resilient food production system for the future.
The lack of research on sustainable energy in agriculture has been a significant challenge that hinders the widespread adoption and implementation of sustainable energy solutions [28]. Research and development require substantial financial resources, but funding for sustainable energy research in agriculture has often been limited. Many research grants and programs tend to prioritize other sectors or areas of study, leaving agriculture with fewer resources for dedicated sustainable energy research [29,30,31]. Limited funding restricts the ability of researchers to conduct comprehensive studies, gather robust data, and develop innovative solutions specific to the agricultural context. Sustainable energy in agriculture is a complex and multidisciplinary field. It requires expertise in agriculture, energy systems, engineering, environmental science, and socio-economic factors. Addressing the diverse challenges and opportunities related to sustainable energy in agriculture necessitates comprehensive research efforts. However, the integration of these diverse disciplines and the collaboration between researchers from different backgrounds can be challenging. The lack of coordination and interdisciplinary research efforts contributes to knowledge gaps and hinders the development of holistic solutions [32].
Building research infrastructure for sustainable energy in agriculture, such as specialized laboratories, testing facilities, and field research sites, requires significant investments. Many research institutions and agricultural organizations may not have the necessary resources to establish dedicated infrastructure for sustainable energy research. The absence of adequate infrastructure limits the ability to conduct large-scale experiments, field trials, and long-term monitoring, hindering the generation of robust data and evidence-based solutions [33]. Indeed, reviewing research in the sustainable agriculture sector is of paramount importance, not only for the reasons mentioned earlier, but also because it allows for the periodic reassessment and updating of key indicators. Agriculture is highly dynamic, subject to constant shifts in environmental conditions, technology, and market forces. Therefore, the indicators used to measure sustainability and success must adapt accordingly to remain accurate and effective. Regular reviews ensure that the chosen indicators stay aligned with the evolving agricultural landscape, allowing for more precise assessments and informed decision making to address the ever-changing challenges and opportunities in sustainable agriculture.
The main input of this paper is the analysis and systematization of renewable and sustainable agriculture indicators collected from previous studies in order to help researchers and also the governments to apply critical indicators in their country and to adopt them based on their country data and area to enhance decision making on sustainable agriculture development with the help of renewable energy deployment.

2. Background of Study

Martin, in the study entitled “Renewable energy development in Queensland, Australia: study of barriers, objectives and laws”, believes that factors such as investment barriers, trade barriers, barriers related to laws and regulations, technology barriers information barriers and education have a negative effect on the development of renewable energies [34].
In their study entitled “Barriers, capacity, and costs of renewable energies: Conceptual issues”, Verbruggen et al. considered the lack of attention to technical and marketing factors as obstacles to the development of renewable energies [35].
Belcher, Noble, and Richards studied the obstacles in the way of renewable energy development in Canada and found that barriers related to awareness, public knowledge, related technologies, economic and social factors, as well as laws and regulations were considered effective [36]. Mihalakakou, Paravantis, and Stigka believe that economic factors, such as a country’s economic conditions, problems in the private and public sectors, the lack of investment, and the absence of a legal framework, along with technical factors, such as land limitations, the lack of stability in renewable energy sources, and inadequate power transmission networks, hinder the development of renewable energies in a region [37].
Narbel, Kurdgelashvili, and Timilsina conducted research on the technical, economic, and marketing barriers to the use of renewable energy and demonstrated their negative impact. They found that some of these factors not only have a direct effect, but also indirectly influence the use of renewable energies by influencing other independent variables. For example, educational factors can affect social awareness, while legal factors can influence economic, social, and technical aspects. Economic growth can be influenced by human capital, which, in turn, can be affected by education [38].
Monitoring and assessing the development of sustainable energy in agriculture depends heavily on indicators. They assist in determining areas for improvement, evaluating the efficacy of sustainable energy practices and policies, and monitoring the results of interventions. Here are some key indicators commonly used to measure sustainable energy in agriculture:
Renewable energy adoption: This indicator measures the proportion of farms or agricultural operations that have implemented renewable energy technologies. It includes the installation and utilization of solar panels, wind turbines, biomass systems, small-scale hydropower, or other renewable energy sources on farms [39].
Energy efficiency: Energy efficiency indicators focus on the effective use of energy in agricultural operations. This includes measuring energy consumption per unit of agricultural output, such as energy used per hectare of cultivated land or per kilogram of crop produced. Improving energy efficiency helps minimize energy waste and optimize resource use [40].
Greenhouse gas emissions: This indicator assesses the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural energy use. It includes measuring and tracking emissions from on-farm energy consumption, including direct emissions from fossil fuel use and indirect emissions from purchased electricity. Reductions in emissions indicate progress toward a low-carbon agricultural sector [41].
Energy productivity: Energy productivity indicators assess the amount of agricultural output generated per unit of energy input. It measures the efficiency of energy use in relation to production outcomes. Increasing energy productivity implies achieving higher yields or outputs with the same or reduced energy inputs [42].
This indicator measures the proportion of energy used in agriculture that is derived from renewable sources. Renewable energy consumption as a percentage of total energy consumption. It sheds light on the switch from non-renewable to renewable energy sources and the degree to which agriculture depends on environmentally friendly energy sources [43].
Investment in research and development: This indicator measures the amount of money spent on developing sustainable sources of energy for use in agriculture. It includes money set aside for initiatives related to knowledge transfer, innovation, and research projects. A commitment to advancing sustainable energy solutions in agriculture is demonstrated by increased investment in research and development [44].
Policy and regulatory frameworks: Indicators related to policy and regulatory frameworks evaluate the existence and effectiveness of policies supporting sustainable energy in agriculture. This includes indicators that assess the presence of renewable energy targets, incentives, subsidies, and regulations that promote the adoption of sustainable energy practices in the agricultural sector [45].
These indicators provide quantitative and qualitative measures to track progress, identify trends, and inform decision making in the field of sustainable energy in agriculture. They help policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders assess the impact of interventions, set targets, and develop strategies to promote sustainable energy adoption in the agricultural sector [46].
Indicators are crucial for monitoring and evaluating the progress of renewable sustainable energy in agriculture. They help assess the effectiveness of initiatives, track trends, and inform decision making. Here are some key indicators used to measure renewable sustainable energy in agriculture:
The installed capacity of renewable energy systems in agriculture, such as solar PV panels, wind turbines, biomass systems, or small-scale hydropower, is measured by this indicator. It offers details on the adoption rate of renewable energy sources and the potential for energy production from them [47].
Energy produced using renewable resources: The amount of energy produced using renewable resources in the agricultural industry is measured by this indicator. It clarifies how renewable energy contributes to overall energy consumption in agriculture [48].
This indicator determines the portion of energy used in agriculture that comes from renewable sources. It calculates renewable energy consumption as a percentage of total energy consumption. It illustrates how much agriculture depends on renewable energy and how far we have come in terms of cutting back on fossil fuel use [49,50].
Carbon emissions reduction: This indicator tracks the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions brought on by agriculture’s use of renewable energy. By calculating the avoided emissions in comparison to conventional fossil fuel-based energy sources, it evaluates the environmental advantages of the adoption of renewable energy [51].
Energy efficiency improvements: This indicator evaluates the energy efficiency of agricultural operations. It examines the energy consumed per unit of agricultural output, such as energy used per hectare or energy used per unit of crop yield. Improvements in energy efficiency indicate the effectiveness of sustainable energy practices in optimizing resource use [52,53].
Financial viability and return on investment: This indicator assesses the financial viability of renewable energy projects in agriculture. It includes metrics such as payback period, return on investment, and cost savings achieved through renewable energy adoption. Positive financial indicators demonstrate the economic feasibility of renewable energy solutions [54].
Policy and regulatory frameworks: Indicators related to policy and regulations evaluate the existence and effectiveness of supportive policies for renewable energy in agriculture. This includes indicators that measure the presence of renewable energy targets, incentives, subsidies, and regulations facilitating the adoption and integration of renewable energy systems [55].
Knowledge transfer and capacity building: This indicator focuses on the dissemination of knowledge, awareness, and capacity building efforts related to renewable energy in agriculture. It assesses the implementation of training programs, workshops, and knowledge exchange platforms that help farmers and stakeholders understand and adopt renewable energy practices [56].
These indicators provide valuable information to policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders to monitor progress, identify areas for improvement, and inform strategic decision making in promoting renewable sustainable energy in agriculture [57]. Regular monitoring of these indicators helps track the impact of initiatives, measure the effectiveness of policies, and identify best practices for wider adoption.

3. Methods

This section discusses the use of the SALSA framework in order to reduce subjectivity while searching for and analyzing the relevant literature. The SALSA methodology is cited in the scientific literature as one of the top methods for classifying, analyzing, and organizing literature because it ensures methodological accuracy and thoroughness. The PRISMA statement was also followed to ensure the consistency and thoroughness of the research procedure. PRISMA additionally guarantees the validity and comprehensiveness of the research [58].
Figure 1 shows the SALSA method’s steps. The SALSA method, which is used to conduct systematic literature reviews or research studies, consists of four main steps. The first step is the search phase, in which researchers choose the appropriate databases and specify their search query. Predetermined criteria are used in the appraisal stage to determine which of the literature should be included or excluded based on relevance and quality evaluation. Data extraction and categorization are steps in the synthesis process that involve systematically organizing gathered information. Finally, during the analysis phase, researchers examine the data, describe the most important findings, and draw conclusions, offering a structured and thorough method for reviewing and synthesizing the research.
A literature search using the TITLE-ABS-KEY (renewable AND sustainable AND agriculture AND indicators OR factors) AND PUBYEAR > 2009 AND PUBYEAR 2024 AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”) was conducted as part of the SALSA technique’s first phase. The search period was from 2010 to 2023. SALSA’s second phase is appraisal. The PRISMA technique was used to choose the papers. If the publication met the criteria for inclusion, it was added for additional study. The following criteria were used for inclusion: the paper had to have a keyword combination in the title, keywords section, or abstract; it had to have been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; and it had to fall under the economics or energy fuels SCOPUS database category. Review articles, editorial letters, papers from conference proceedings, papers not written in English, and papers that were not original research papers were all excluded.
The search was divided into three sections: the first dealt with the economy; the second, with the environment; and the third, with social issues. Table 1 displays the indicators along with their respective references. Figure 2 shows the PRISMA steps for the appraisal phase.
Based on a thorough analysis of 432 papers, Figure 3 presents a breakdown of the research papers that have been published in the fields of sustainable agriculture and renewable energy. A significant focus on the environmental aspects of renewable energy and sustainable agricultural practices can be seen in the fact that 240 of these papers were published in the field of environmental science.
Within the Energy domain, 149 papers were published, showcasing a substantial body of work dedicated to exploring various renewable energy sources and their applications. The contribution of these papers plays a crucial role in advancing sustainable energy solutions.
In the Agricultural and Biological Science area, there were 94 published papers, emphasizing the importance of sustainable agricultural practices and the integration of renewable energy technologies in farming and food production.
The Engineering field also demonstrated notable attention, with 94 papers published. These engineering-focused papers likely cover advancements in renewable energy technologies, agricultural machinery, and infrastructure development to promote sustainable practices.
Furthermore, the Social Science domain witnessed the publication of 63 papers. These papers might delve into the socio-economic and behavioral aspects of adopting renewable energy and sustainable agricultural practices, highlighting the broader societal impact and acceptance of such initiatives.
Overall, the substantial number of published papers in these different areas reflects the growing interest and commitment of the academic and research communities towards fostering renewable energy and sustainable agriculture for a more sustainable future.
Figure 4 presents an analysis of the types of documents published in the field of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, based on a comprehensive dataset of 432 papers.
The predominant category, comprising 263 papers, indicates a strong emphasis on original research studies and findings in the field. These articles likely cover a wide range of topics, including technological innovations, experimental results, and theoretical contributions to renewable energy and sustainable agriculture.
The presence of 66 review papers signifies the importance of summarizing and critically evaluating the existing literature in this domain. Reviews play a crucial role in synthesizing knowledge, identifying research gaps, and providing valuable insights to researchers and practitioners.
With 55 papers being presented at conferences, it highlights the active participation of scholars in academic gatherings and symposiums dedicated to renewable energy and sustainable agriculture. Conference papers are often a way to share preliminary findings and gather feedback from the academic community.
The 29 book chapters published in this area indicate contributions to scholarly books or edited volumes focused on renewable energy and sustainable agriculture. These chapters likely delve into specific aspects, offering in-depth analysis and comprehensive perspectives within the broader context of the field.
The diversity of document types showcases the multidisciplinary nature of research in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture. It reflects the collective efforts of scholars, researchers, and practitioners from various backgrounds, contributing their expertise to address the complex challenges and opportunities in achieving a sustainable future. Moreover, the availability of different types of publications allows for a comprehensive understanding of the subject and fosters knowledge dissemination to a wide audience.
Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of research papers in the field of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture based on their country of origin. The data consists of papers from several countries, with the following being the top contributors:
China: Leading the list with 55 papers, China demonstrates significant research activity and commitment to advancing renewable energy and sustainable agricultural practices.
United States: With 51 papers, the United States showcases substantial contributions to the field, reflecting its prominent position in research and development in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture.
Italy: Italy ranks third with 38 papers, indicating a noteworthy interest and involvement in studying and promoting sustainable solutions within its academic and research community.
India: At 32 papers, India’s research output reflects the country’s increasing focus on renewable energy technologies and sustainable agricultural practices to address its energy and environmental challenges.
United Kingdom: With 29 papers, the United Kingdom exhibits a strong dedication to research and innovation in the domain of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture.
Germany: Germany’s contribution of 24 papers highlights its longstanding commitment to sustainability and green initiatives, fostering research advancements in this field.
Iran: With 22 papers, Iran’s academic community actively engages in research pertaining to renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, contributing to global efforts in this area.
Spain: Spain’s 19 papers indicate its involvement in exploring and implementing sustainable energy and agricultural solutions within its national context.
Pakistan: At 18 papers, Pakistan’s research output underscores its interest in studying renewable energy technologies and sustainable agricultural practices.
Brazil: With 17 papers, Brazil demonstrates its dedication to advancing sustainable development and environmental preservation through research and innovation.
The diverse representation of countries in this dataset underscores the global interest and collaboration in the pursuit of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture. Each nation’s research contributions play a crucial role in shaping policies, technologies, and practices to build a more sustainable and resilient future.
Table 1 shows the authors and number of paper that published. These authors have made significant contributions to the research and literature in the domain of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, and their work likely spans a wide range of topics and areas within the field. Their multiple publications demonstrate their expertise and dedication to advancing knowledge and promoting sustainability in this important area of study.
Table 2 shows that these journals are reputable and have published significant research in the field of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture. Scholars often consider publications in these journals as important contributions to the field, helping to advance knowledge and promote sustainable practices in various aspects of energy and agriculture.
Table 3 presents the number of papers published each year, indicating the research output in the field of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture over a period of 14 years. The data shows the trend of research activity, with higher publication numbers in recent years, reflecting the growing interest and significance of this field in academia and research. It also highlights the continuous efforts of scholars and researchers to address sustainability challenges and explore innovative solutions in the context of renewable energy and sustainable agricultural practices.
According to an analysis, a total of 178 papers were discovered for this study, from which 84 indicators were ultimately extracted. Table 4 presents a comprehensive list of indicators related to renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, organized into five dimensions: Economical, Environment, Institutional, Social, and Technical. These indicators cover various aspects and factors that are important for assessing and understanding the sustainability and impact of renewable energy, and agricultural practices may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

4. Discussion

This research reviewed 178 papers using SALSA and PRISMA. The analysis of the research papers in the field of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture reveals a clear emphasis on environmental aspects, with 240 papers published in the domain of Environmental Science. This focus indicates the global recognition of the urgent need to address environmental challenges and promote sustainable practices in energy and agriculture. Moreover, the substantial body of work within the Energy domain (149 papers) reflects the growing interest in exploring various renewable energy sources and their applications. This research is crucial for advancing sustainable energy solutions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The attention given to sustainable agricultural practices and the integration of renewable energy technologies in the Agricultural and Biological Science area (94 papers) underscores the importance of sustainable food production and resource-efficient farming methods. These research efforts contribute to enhancing agricultural productivity while minimizing environmental impacts. The significant presence of 94 papers in the Engineering field indicates the vital role of engineering advancements in renewable energy technologies, agricultural machinery, and infrastructure development. These innovations are instrumental in promoting the widespread adoption and implementation of sustainable practices.
Furthermore, the inclusion of 63 papers in the Social Science domain highlights the recognition of the socio-economic and behavioral dimensions of adopting renewable energy and sustainable agricultural practices. Understanding societal acceptance and impact is crucial for the successful implementation of sustainable initiatives. The geographic distribution of research papers across various countries underscores the global nature of the challenges and the collaborative efforts towards achieving sustainability.
In conclusion, the comprehensive analysis of research papers in the renewable energy and sustainable agriculture domains highlights the multidisciplinary nature of this field. The substantial number of publications, along with the diverse representation of document types and countries, demonstrates the growing interest and commitment of the global academic and research communities in fostering a more sustainable future [233]. By addressing environmental, economic, social, and technological aspects, these research efforts pave the way for innovative solutions, policy formulation, and transformative practices that can help mitigate climate change, promote sustainable energy consumption, and ensure food security while preserving natural resources for future generations [234].
The diversity of document types in Figure 4 reflects the multidisciplinary nature of research in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture. Original research articles contribute to expanding the knowledge base, while review papers provide valuable syntheses of existing research. Conference papers and book chapters’ foster knowledge exchange and the in-depth exploration of specific topics, promoting collaboration among researchers and practitioners from different backgrounds.
Figure 5 illustrates the global interest in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, with notable contributions from China, the United States, Italy, India, and other countries. This international collaboration underscores the shared commitment to addressing sustainability challenges on a global scale.
The analysis of indicators (Table 4) further enriches the understanding of this field. The Economical dimension highlights the importance of capital investment, investment cost, and maintenance cost in determining the financial feasibility of sustainable energy and agricultural projects. Additionally, the impact of renewable energy on employment generation and economic growth is evident in the indicators.
The Environment dimension emphasizes the significance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy consumption, and ensuring the quality of natural resources. The Institutional dimension underlines the importance of effective policymaking, international cooperation, and transparent regulatory practices to create an enabling environment for renewable energy and sustainable agriculture [235].
The Social dimension reflects the role of subsidies, credit access, innovation capacity, and collaborative efforts in driving the adoption of sustainable practices. Lastly, the Technical dimension focuses on technological efficiency, accessibility, and meeting energy needs effectively [236].
Overall, the comprehensive analysis of renewable energy indicators in sustainable agriculture sheds light on the diverse facets and complexities of this vital field [237]. The research findings showcased in the table, figures, and authors’ contributions underline the collective efforts towards advancing sustainability and shaping a more resilient and environmentally conscious future. The knowledge generated through these publications is instrumental in informing policies, guiding technological innovations, and promoting sustainable practices, ultimately contributing to a greener and more sustainable world.
International collaboration and knowledge exchange are crucial for accelerating advancements in this field. Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners from different countries can learn from each other’s experiences, share best practices, and jointly tackle global sustainability challenges. Continued investment in research and development, coupled with public and private sector partnerships, will pave the way for transformative solutions and a greener future.
In a systematic review, Gunnarsdottir et al. (2020) emphasized the growing significance of sustainable energy development and assessed 57 existing indicator sets against six criteria, revealing widespread deficiencies and emphasizing the need for refinement and increased stakeholder involvement in the energy indicators for sustainable development [238]. Siksnelyte-Butkiene and colleagues (2021) conducted a systematic review to evaluate 71 composite indicators for measuring energy poverty (EP). Their research integrated the SALSA framework, PRISMA statement, and PICOC framework to comprehensively assess these indicators based on the Bellagio Sustainability Assessment and Measurement (STAMP) principles, providing valuable recommendations for practical EP indicator use [239]. Lähtinen et al.’s 2014 systematic literature review assessed forest-based bioenergy production sustainability locally, identifying diverse indicators. It emphasized the lack of methods to align local development with global sustainability goals, offering valuable insights to stakeholders in specific regions [240].
In conclusion, the field of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture holds immense promise in driving positive change and creating a more sustainable and prosperous world. Through collective efforts, continued research, and innovative practices, we have the potential to usher in a new era of clean and sustainable energy, while also fostering agricultural practices that respect and preserve the planet’s natural resources. Embracing this field’s importance and global significance, we can build a brighter future for generations to come, promoting environmental stewardship, social equity, and economic prosperity on a global scale.
There is also a need for research on the integration of renewable sustainable energy in agriculture, which should take into account incomplete indicator classification, poor socio-economic impact assessment, the scant consideration of cultural and gender issues, the disjointed assessments of the effects on ecosystem services, and the inadequate examination of cross-sector collaboration models. Future research should concentrate on improving and dynamically categorizing indicators for various agricultural processes, examining government policies and incentives for the adoption of renewable energy, thoroughly evaluating the interaction between renewable energy and larger sustainability challenges, looking into effective public–private partnership models, and promoting inclusive research that incorporates social equity and cultural sensitivity in order to fill these gaps.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the comprehensive analysis of 432 research papers in the field of renewable energy and sustainable agriculture demonstrates the growing significance and global interest in addressing pressing environmental and socio-economic challenges. The multitude of publications across various domains highlights the multidisciplinary nature of research in this area, with scholars and researchers from diverse backgrounds collaborating to find innovative solutions. The identified indicators spanning economic, environmental, institutional, social, and technical dimensions provide valuable insights into the sustainability and impact of renewable energy and agricultural practices.
It is impossible to overstate the significance of this field because it holds the key to a future for our planet that is more resilient and sustainable. When compared to fossil fuels, renewable energy sources are more environmentally friendly, producing fewer greenhouse gas emissions and lessening the negative effects of climate change. Integrating renewable energy with sustainable agriculture practices can enhance food security, minimize environmental impacts, and foster rural development. Moreover, the research and innovations in this field contribute to achieving global sustainability goals, including the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), by promoting responsible consumption, ensuring access to clean energy, and preserving biodiversity.
The paper has limitations. The empirical study is not included in it. Future research will include a case study on the application of these indicators in several countries and a comparative assessment of progress achieved by these countries in applying renewables for sustainable agriculture development.

6. Recommendations

Future research areas in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture should focus on strengthening policy frameworks and regulations to incentivize the adoption of renewable energy technologies and sustainable practices.
Additionally, efforts should be directed towards improving energy storage solutions and increasing the efficiency of renewable energy systems to ensure a stable and reliable energy supply.
Research on innovative agricultural practices, such as agroecology and precision farming, can lead to more sustainable food production methods and resource management.
Moreover, exploring the social and behavioral aspects of adopting renewable energy and sustainable agriculture can guide the development of inclusive and community-driven approaches.
Experts in energy policy and regulation, representatives from agricultural organizations, and policymakers may all be able to offer insightful opinions. To ground the research in real-world challenges and applications, practitioners such as farmers, agricultural industry representatives, and developers of renewable energy technologies must be involved. Last but not least, to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive perspective on future research directions, representatives from indigenous and local communities, as well as advocates for gender equity and social inclusion, should also contribute.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rafael, B.M. The Importance of Agricultural Development Projects: A Focus on Sustenance and Employment Creation in Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, and Uganda. J. Agric. Chem. Environ. 2023, 12, 152–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Eigenbrod, C.; Gruda, N. Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dumenu, W.K.; Obeng, E.A. Climate change and rural communities in Ghana: Social vulnerability, impacts, adaptations and policy implications. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Payumo, J.G.; Assem, S.; Bhooshan, N.; Galhena, H.; Mbabazi, R.; Maredia, K. Managing agricultural research for prosperity and food security in 2050: Comparison of performance, innovation models and prospects. Open Agric. J. 2018, 12, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sofo, A.; Zanella, A.; Ponge, J.F. Soil quality and fertility in sustainable agriculture, with a contribution to the biological classification of agricultural soils. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1085–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Blok, V.; Long, T.B.; Gaziulusoy, A.I.; Ciliz, N.; Lozano, R.; Huisingh, D.; Csutora, M.; Boks, C. From best practices to bridges for a more sustainable future: Advances and challenges in the transition to global sustainable production and consumption: Introduction to the ERSCP stream of the Special volume. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kovács-Hostyánszki, A.; Espíndola, A.; Vanbergen, A.J.; Settele, J.; Kremen, C.; Dicks, L.V. Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination. Ecol. Lett. 2017, 20, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Islam, M.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Introduction to energy and sustainable development. In Energy for Sustainable Development; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  9. Edwards, M.B. The role of sport in community capacity building: An examination of sport for development research and practice. Sport Manag. Rev. 2015, 18, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Umesha, S.; Manukumar, H.M.; Chandrasekhar, B. Sustainable agriculture and food security. In Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 67–92. [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis, K.F.; Gephart, J.A.; Emery, K.A.; Leach, A.M.; Galloway, J.N.; D’Odorico, P. Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Michelsen, C.C.; Madlener, R. Switching from fossil fuel to renewables in residential heating systems: An empirical study of homeowners’ decisions in Germany. Energy Policy 2016, 89, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nacer, T.; Hamidat, A.; Nadjemi, O.; Bey, M. Feasibility study of grid connected photovoltaic system in family farms for electricity generation in rural areas. Renew. Energy 2016, 96, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, M.D.; San Lee, P. Modelling the energy extraction from low-velocity stream water by small scale Archimedes screw turbine. J. King Saud Univ.-Eng. Sci. 2021, 35, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, G.; Yang, J.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, Y. Big data-informed energy efficiency assessment of China industry sectors based on K-means clustering. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Obileke, K.; Nwokolo, N.; Makaka, G.; Mukumba, P.; Onyeaka, H. Anaerobic digestion: Technology for biogas production as a source of renewable energy—A review. Energy Environ. 2021, 32, 191–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kapoor, R.; Ghosh, P.; Kumar, M.; Sengupta, S.; Gupta, A.; Kumar, S.S.; Vijay, V.; Kumar, V.; Vijay, V.K.; Pant, D. Valorization of agricultural waste for biogas based circular economy in India: A research outlook. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 304, 123036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Yu, C.; Moslehpour, M.; Tran, T.K.; Trung, L.M.; Ou, J.P.; Tien, N.H. Impact of non-renewable energy and natural resources on economic recovery: Empirical evidence from selected developing economies. Resour. Policy 2023, 80, 103221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, X.; Wang, G.; Chen, T.; Zeng, Z.; Heng, C.K. Low-carbon city and its future research trends: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 90, 104381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Borowski, P.F. Digitization, digital twins, blockchain, and industry 4.0 as elements of management process in enterprises in the energy sector. Energies 2021, 14, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Olabode, O.; Ajewole, T.; Okakwu, I.; Alayande, A.; Akinyele, D. Hybrid power systems for off-grid locations: A comprehensive review of design technologies, applications and future trends. Sci. Afr. 2021, 13, e00884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Popp, J.; Kovács, S.; Oláh, J.; Divéki, Z.; Balázs, E. Bioeconomy: Biomass and biomass-based energy supply and demand. New Biotechnol. 2021, 60, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kumar, C.M.S.; Singh, S.; Gupta, M.K.; Nimdeo, Y.M.; Raushan, R.; Deorankar, A.V.; Kumar, T.A.; Rout, P.K.; Chanotiya, C.; Pakhale, V.D. Solar energy: A promising renewable source for meeting energy demand in Indian agriculture applications. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 55, 102905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Majeed, Y.; Khan, M.U.; Waseem, M.; Zahid, U.; Mahmood, F.; Majeed, F.; Sultan, M.; Raza, A. Renewable energy as an alternative source for energy management in agriculture. Energy Rep. 2023, 10, 344–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Piñeiro, V.; Arias, J.; Dürr, J.; Elverdin, P.; Ibáñez, A.M.; Kinengyere, A.; Opazo, C.M.; Owoo, N.; Page, J.R.; Prager, S.D. A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bhuyan, S.; Laxman, T.; Saikanth, D.; Badekhan, A. Advanced Farming Technologies for Pollution Reduction and Increased Crop Productivity. In Advanced Farming Technology; Scripown Publications: New Delhi, India, 2023; pp. 194–214. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zlaoui, M.; Dhraief, M.Z.; Hilali, M.E.-D.; Dhehibi, B.; Ben Salem, M.; Jebali, O.; Rekik, M. Can Small-Scale Dairy Farm Profitability Increase with the Use of Solar Energy Technology? An Experimental Study in Central Tunisia. Energies 2023, 16, 4925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rasul, G. Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia. Environ. Dev. 2016, 18, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jacquet, F.; Jeuffroy, M.-H.; Jouan, J.; Le Cadre, E.; Litrico, I.; Malausa, T.; Reboud, X.; Huyghe, C. Pesticide-free agriculture as a new paradigm for research. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vladimirovaa, K.; Le Blanc, D. How Well Are the Links Between Education and Other Sustainable Development Goals Covered in UN Flagship Reports?: A Contribution to the Study of the Science-Policy Interface on Education in the UN System (October 2015). 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2111education%20and%20sdgs.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2023).
  31. Vladimirova, K.; Le Blanc, D. Exploring links between education and sustainable development goals through the lens of UN flagship reports. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 24, 254–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pedersen, D.B. Integrating social sciences and humanities in interdisciplinary research. Palgrave Commun. 2016, 2, 16036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Greenhalgh, T.; Wherton, J.; Papoutsi, C.; Lynch, J.; Hughes, G.; Hinder, S.; Fahy, N.; Procter, R.; Shaw, S. Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e8775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Martin, N.J.; Rice, J.L. Developing renewable energy supply in Queensland, Australia: A study of the barriers, targets, policies and actions. Renew. Energy 2012, 44, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Verbruggen, A.; Fischedick, M.; Moomaw, W.; Weir, T.; Nadaï, A.; Nilsson, L.J.; Nyboer, J.; Sathaye, J. Renewable energy costs, potentials, barriers: Conceptual issues. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 850–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Richards, G.; Noble, B.; Belcher, K. Barriers to renewable energy development: A case study of large-scale wind energy in Saskatchewan, Canada. Energy Policy 2012, 42, 691–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stigka, E.K.; Paravantis, J.A.; Mihalakakou, G.K. Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Timilsina, G.R.; Kurdgelashvili, L.; Narbel, P.A.; Timilsina, G.R. A Review of Solar Energy: Markets, Economics and Policies; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  39. Brinkley, C.; Leach, A. Energy next door: A meta-analysis of energy infrastructure impact on housing value. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 50, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mohseni, P.; Borghei, A.M.; Khanali, M. Coupled life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis for mitigation of environmental impacts and enhancement of energy efficiency in grape production. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 937–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fragkos, P.; Tasios, N.; Paroussos, L.; Capros, P.; Tsani, S. Energy system impacts and policy implications of the European Intended Nationally Determined Contribution and low-carbon pathway to 2050. Energy Policy 2017, 100, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jebali, E.; Essid, H.; Khraief, N. The analysis of energy efficiency of the Mediterranean countries: A two-stage double bootstrap DEA approach. Energy 2017, 134, 991–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kanter, D.R.; Musumba, M.; Wood, S.L.; Palm, C.; Antle, J.; Balvanera, P.; Dale, V.H.; Havlik, P.; Kline, K.L.; Scholes, R.J. Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric. Syst. 2018, 163, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Surie, G. Creating the innovation ecosystem for renewable energy via social entrepreneurship: Insights from India. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 121, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lefebvre, M.; Langrell, S.R.; Gomez-y-Paloma, S. Incentives and policies for integrated pest management in Europe: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Mazzucato, M.; Messner, D.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rockström, J. Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hansen, K.; Breyer, C.; Lund, H. Status and perspectives on 100% renewable energy systems. Energy 2019, 175, 471–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jebli, M.B.; Youssef, S.B. The role of renewable energy and agriculture in reducing CO2 emissions: Evidence for North Africa countries. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 74, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, X.; Zhang, S.; Bae, J. The impact of renewable energy and agriculture on carbon dioxide emissions: Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve in four selected ASEAN countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 1239–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jia, L.; Zhang, H.; Xu, R. The simultaneous impact of urbanization and education on renewable energy consumption: Empirical evidence from china. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2022, 21, 531–548. [Google Scholar]
  51. Goh, T.; Ang, B. Quantifying CO2 emission reductions from renewables and nuclear energy–some paradoxes. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kheiri, F. A review on optimization methods applied in energy-efficient building geometry and envelope design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 897–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rus, A.V.; Rovinaru, M.D.; Pirvu, M.; Bako, E.D.; Rovinaru, F.I. Renewable energy generation and consumption across 2030—Analysis and forecast of required growth in generation capacity. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2020, 19, 746–766. [Google Scholar]
  54. Elkadeem, M.; Wang, S.; Sharshir, S.W.; Atia, E.G. Feasibility analysis and techno-economic design of grid-isolated hybrid renewable energy system for electrification of agriculture and irrigation area: A case study in Dongola, Sudan. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 196, 1453–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Banerjee, S.G.; Moreno, F.A.; Sinton, J.; Primiani, T.; Seong, J. Regulatory Indicators for Sustainable Energy; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rose, D.C.; Sutherland, W.J.; Barnes, A.P.; Borthwick, F.; Ffoulkes, C.; Hall, C.; Moorby, J.M.; Nicholas-Davies, P.; Twining, S.; Dicks, L.V. Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture: Lessons for knowledge exchange and policy. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 834–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dizdaroglu, D. The role of indicator-based sustainability assessment in policy and the decision-making process: A review and outlook. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bathaei, A.; Štreimikienė, D. A Systematic Review of Agricultural Sustainability Indicators. Agriculture 2023, 13, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sagel, V.N.; Rouwenhorst, K.H.; Faria, J.A. Green ammonia enables sustainable energy production in small island developing states: A case study on the island of Curaçao. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bagheri, M.; Delbari, S.H.; Pakzadmanesh, M.; Kennedy, C.A. City-integrated renewable energy design for low-carbon and climate-resilient communities. Appl. Energy 2019, 239, 1212–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chopra, R.; Magazzino, C.; Shah, M.I.; Sharma, G.D.; Rao, A.; Shahzad, U. The role of renewable energy and natural resources for sustainable agriculture in ASEAN countries: Do carbon emissions and deforestation affect agriculture productivity? Resour. Policy 2022, 76, 102578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Koohafkan, P.; Altieri, M.A.; Gimenez, E.H. Green agriculture: Foundations for biodiverse, resilient and productive agricultural systems. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2012, 10, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kaygusuz, K. Energy services and energy poverty for sustainable rural development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 936–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rafiee, S.; Avval, S.H.M.; Mohammadi, A. Modeling and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for apple production in Iran. Energy 2010, 35, 3301–3306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. White, B. Agriculture and the generation problem: Rural youth, employment and the future of farming. IDS Bull. 2012, 43, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Amer, M.; Daim, T.U. Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing county: A case of Pakistan. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2011, 15, 420–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Srirangan, K.; Akawi, L.; Moo-Young, M.; Chou, C.P. Towards sustainable production of clean energy carriers from biomass resources. Appl. Energy 2012, 100, 172–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ho, D.P.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W. A mini review on renewable sources for biofuel. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 169, 742–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Mekhilef, S.; Saidur, R.; Safari, A. A review on solar energy use in industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1777–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Peidong, Z.; Yanli, Y.; Jin, S.; Yonghong, Z.; Lisheng, W.; Xinrong, L. Opportunities and challenges for renewable energy policy in China. In Renewable Energy; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; Volume 4, pp. 486–503. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhou, P.; Yin, P. An opportunistic condition-based maintenance strategy for offshore wind farm based on predictive analytics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 109, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pimentel, D. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  73. Teleke, S.; Baran, M.E.; Bhattacharya, S.; Huang, A.Q. Rule-based control of battery energy storage for dispatching intermittent renewable sources. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2010, 1, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zografakis, N.; Sifaki, E.; Pagalou, M.; Nikitaki, G.; Psarakis, V.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lyon, T.P.; Yin, H. Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards?: An empirical investigation. Energy J. 2010, 31, 133–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Khan, M.T.I.; Ali, Q.; Ashfaq, M. The nexus between greenhouse gas emission, electricity production, renewable energy and agriculture in Pakistan. Renew. Energy 2018, 118, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. MacKay, D.J. Sustainable Energy-Without the Hot Air; Bloomsbury Publishing: Bloomsbury, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  78. Lages Barbosa, G.; Almeida Gadelha, F.D.; Kublik, N.; Proctor, A.; Reichelm, L.; Weissinger, E.; Wohlleb, G.M.; Halden, R.U. Comparison of land, water, and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 6879–6891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Quaschning, V. Understanding Renewable Energy Systems; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  80. Twidell, J. Renewable Energy Resources; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  81. Begum, R.A.; Sohag, K.; Abdullah, S.M.S.; Jaafar, M. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 594–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Owusu, P.A.; Asumadu-Sarkodie, S. A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Eng. 2016, 3, 1167990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Baloch, M.A.; Mahmood, N.; Zhang, J.W. Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 632–638. [Google Scholar]
  84. Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.-H.; Gingrich, S.; Haberl, H.; Bondeau, A.; Gaube, V.; Lauk, C.; Plutzar, C.; Searchinger, T.D. Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 10324–10329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Vesborg, P.C.; Jaramillo, T.F. Addressing the terawatt challenge: Scalability in the supply of chemical elements for renewable energy. RSC Adv. 2012, 2, 7933–7947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lim, J.S.; Manan, Z.A.; Alwi, S.R.W.; Hashim, H. A review on utilisation of biomass from rice industry as a source of renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3084–3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Amponsah, N.Y.; Troldborg, M.; Kington, B.; Aalders, I.; Hough, R.L. Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources: A review of lifecycle considerations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 461–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Qiao, H.; Zheng, F.; Jiang, H.; Dong, K. The greenhouse effect of the agriculture-economic growth-renewable energy nexus: Evidence from G20 countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 722–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Chel, A.; Kaushik, G. Renewable energy for sustainable agriculture. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 91–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Panwar, N.L.; Kaushik, S.C.; Kothari, S. Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1513–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mohammed, Y.; Mustafa, M.; Bashir, N.; Mokhtar, A. Renewable energy resources for distributed power generation in Nigeria: A review of the potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 22, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jahangir, M.H.; Cheraghi, R. Economic and environmental assessment of solar-wind-biomass hybrid renewable energy system supplying rural settlement load. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 42, 100895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Roos, C.J. Clean Heat and Power Using Biomass Gasification for Industrial and Agricultural Projects; Northwest CHP Application Center: Olympia, WA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  94. Azarpour, A.; Suhaimi, S.; Zahedi, G.; Bahadori, A. A review on the drawbacks of renewable energy as a promising energy source of the future. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2013, 38, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Alemán-Nava, G.S.; Casiano-Flores, V.H.; Cárdenas-Chávez, D.L.; Díaz-Chavez, R.; Scarlat, N.; Mahlknecht, J.; Dallemand, J.-F.; Parra, R. Renewable energy research progress in Mexico: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Taghizadeh-Hesary, F.; Rasoulinezhad, E.; Yoshino, N. Energy and food security: Linkages through price volatility. Energy Policy 2019, 128, 796–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Krishan, O.; Suhag, S. Techno-economic analysis of a hybrid renewable energy system for an energy poor rural community. J. Energy Storage 2019, 23, 305–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bulavskaya, T.; Reynès, F. Job creation and economic impact of renewable energy in the Netherlands. Renew. Energy 2018, 119, 528–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mathiesen, B.V.; Lund, H.; Karlsson, K. 100% Renewable energy systems, climate mitigation and economic growth. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 488–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Waheed, R.; Chang, D.; Sarwar, S.; Chen, W. Forest, agriculture, renewable energy, and CO2 emission. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4231–4238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Shonnard, D.R.; Williams, L.; Kalnes, T.N. Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel: Sustainable advanced biofuels. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2010, 29, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Korberg, A.D.; Skov, I.R.; Mathiesen, B.V. The role of biogas and biogas-derived fuels in a 100% renewable energy system in Denmark. Energy 2020, 199, 117426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Liu, T.; McConkey, B.; Huffman, T.; Smith, S.; MacGregor, B.; Yemshanov, D.; Kulshreshtha, S. Potential and impacts of renewable energy production from agricultural biomass in Canada. Appl. Energy 2014, 130, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bhuiyan, M.A.; Parvez, L.; Islam, M.; Dampare, S.B.; Suzuki, S. Heavy metal pollution of coal mine-affected agricultural soils in the northern part of Bangladesh. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 173, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Kothari, R.; Tyagi, V.V.; Pathak, A. Waste-to-energy: A way from renewable energy sources to sustainable development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 3164–3170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Rao, P.V.; Baral, S.S.; Dey, R.; Mutnuri, S. Biogas generation potential by anaerobic digestion for sustainable energy development in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2086–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Abdeshahian, P.; Lim, J.S.; Ho, W.S.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T. Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 714–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S. Biomass energy and the environmental impacts associated with its production and utilization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 919–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Smith, P.; Bustamante, M.; Ahammad, H.; Clark, H.; Dong, H.; Elsiddig, E.A.; Haberl, H.; Harper, R.; House, J.; Jafari, M. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 811–922. [Google Scholar]
  110. Rathmann, R.; Szklo, A.; Schaeffer, R. Land use competition for production of food and liquid biofuels: An analysis of the arguments in the current debate. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Lovell, S.T. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2499–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wei, M.; Patadia, S.; Kammen, D.M. Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 919–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Da Rosa, A.V.; Ordóñez, J.C. Fundamentals of Renewable Energy Processes; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  114. Groth, T.M.; Vogt, C.A. Rural wind farm development: Social, environmental and economic features important to local residents. Renew. Energy 2014, 63, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Shahsavari, A.; Akbari, M. Potential of solar energy in developing countries for reducing energy-related emissions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Gasparatos, A.; Doll, C.N.; Esteban, M.; Ahmed, A.; Olang, T.A. Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Shafie, S.M.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Masjuki, H.H.; Andriyana, A. Current energy usage and sustainable energy in Malaysia: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4370–4377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hoffacker, M.K.; Allen, M.F.; Hernandez, R.R. Land-sparing opportunities for solar energy development in agricultural landscapes: A case study of the Great Central Valley, CA, United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 14472–14482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Seto, K.C.; Reenberg, A.; Boone, C.G.; Fragkias, M.; Haase, D.; Langanke, T.; Marcotullio, P.; Munroe, D.K.; Olah, B.; Simon, D. Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 7687–7692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Liu, X.; Zhang, S.; Bae, J. The nexus of renewable energy-agriculture-environment in BRICS. Appl. Energy 2017, 204, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Aydoğan, B.; Vardar, G. Evaluating the role of renewable energy, economic growth and agriculture on CO2 emission in E7 countries. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2020, 39, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hassan, M.H.; Kalam, M.A. An overview of biofuel as a renewable energy source: Development and challenges. Procedia Eng. 2013, 56, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Shabalala, A.N.; Combrinck, L.; McCrindle, R. Effect of farming activities on seasonal variation of water quality of Bonsma Dam, KwaZulu-Natal. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2013, 109, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Misaghi, F.; Delgosha, F.; Razzaghmanesh, M.; Myers, B. Introducing a water quality index for assessing water for irrigation purposes: A case study of the Ghezel Ozan River. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 589, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Gorde, S.; Jadhav, M. Assessment of water quality parameters: A review. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2013, 3, 2029–2035. [Google Scholar]
  126. Hosseini, S.E.; Wahid, M.A. Feasibility study of biogas production and utilization as a source of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 19, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Arthur, R.; Baidoo, M.F.; Antwi, E. Biogas as a potential renewable energy source: A Ghanaian case study. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 1510–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Kalyani, K.A.; Pandey, K.K. Waste to energy status in India: A short review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zamri, M.; Hasmady, S.; Akhiar, A.; Ideris, F.; Shamsuddin, A.; Mofijur, M.; Fattah, I.R.; Mahlia, T. A comprehensive review on anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 137, 110637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Singh, R.P.; Tyagi, V.V.; Allen, T.; Ibrahim, M.H.; Kothari, R. An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4797–4808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Eddine, B.T.; Salah, M.M. Solid waste as renewable source of energy: Current and future possibility in Algeria. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2012, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Adejumo, I.O.; Adebiyi, O.A. Agricultural solid wastes: Causes, effects, and effective management. In Strategies of Sustainable Solid Waste Management; InTech Open: Rijeka, Croatia, 2020; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  133. Tozlu, A.; Özahi, E.; Abuşoğlu, A. Waste to energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Gaziantep. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Naik, S.; Goud, V.V.; Rout, P.K.; Jacobson, K.; Dalai, A.K. Characterization of Canadian biomass for alternative renewable biofuel. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 1624–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Tripathi, N.; Hills, C.D.; Singh, R.S.; Atkinson, C.J. Biomass waste utilisation in low-carbon products: Harnessing a major potential resource. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2019, 2, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Hosseini, S.E.; Wahid, M.A. Utilization of palm solid residue as a source of renewable and sustainable energy in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 621–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Abate, T.G.; Nielsen, R.; Tveterås, R. Stringency of environmental regulation and aquaculture growth: A cross-country analysis. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2016, 20, 201–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Tyagi, V.K.; Lo, S.-L. Sludge: A waste or renewable source for energy and resources recovery? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 708–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sauvage, J. The Stringency of Environmental Regulations and Trade in Environmental Goods. 2014. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/trade/the-stringency-of-environmental-regulations-and-trade-in-environmental-goods_5jxrjn7xsnmq-en (accessed on 24 September 2023).
  140. Gebrezgabher, S.A.; Meuwissen, M.P.; Prins, B.A.; Lansink, A.G.O. Economic analysis of anaerobic digestion—A case of Green power biogas plant in The Netherlands. NJAS-Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2010, 57, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Percival, R.V.; Schroeder, C.H.; Miller, A.S.; Leape, J.P. Environmental Regulation: Law, Science, and Policy [Connected EBook with Study Center]; Aspen Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  142. Khan, S.A.R.; Sharif, A.; Golpîra, H.; Kumar, A. A green ideology in Asian emerging economies: From environmental policy and sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 1063–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hoekman, S.K.; Broch, A.; Liu, X.V. Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the US: A literature review. Part I–Impacts on water, soil, and air quality. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 3140–3158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Liang, X. Emerging power quality challenges due to integration of renewable energy sources. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2016, 53, 855–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ben Jebli, M.; Ben Youssef, S. Renewable energy consumption and agriculture: Evidence for cointegration and Granger causality for Tunisian economy. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017, 24, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.-F.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Banja, M.; Motola, V. Renewable energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European Union–An overview from National Renewable Energy Action Plans and Progress Reports. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 969–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Paska, J.; Surma, T. Electricity generation from renewable energy sources in Poland. Renew. Energy 2014, 71, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Mendigoria, C.H.R.; Concepcion, R.S.; Dadios, E.P.; Sybingco, E.; Bandala, A.A. Energy management trends for sustainability in agriculture industry of the Philippines. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 12th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and Management (HNICEM), Manila, Philippines, 3–7 December 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  149. Sims, R.; Mercado, P.E.; Krewitt, W. Integration of Renewable Energy into Present and Future Energy Systems. 2011. Available online: https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/159410 (accessed on 24 September 2023).
  150. Hall, J.; Matos, S.; Silvestre, B.; Martin, M. Managing technological and social uncertainties of innovation: The evolution of Brazilian energy and agriculture. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 1147–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Ouda, O.K.; Raza, S.; Nizami, A.; Rehan, M.; Al-Waked, R.; Korres, N. Waste to energy potential: A case study of Saudi Arabia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 61, 328–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Surendra, K.; Takara, D.; Hashimoto, A.G.; Khanal, S.K. Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 846–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Van Vuuren, D.P.; Stehfest, E.; Gernaat, D.E.; Doelman, J.C.; Van den Berg, M.; Harmsen, M.; de Boer, H.S.; Bouwman, L.F.; Daioglou, V.; Edelenbosch, O.Y. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 42, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Kannan, N.; Vakeesan, D. Solar energy for future world:-A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1092–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Solangi, K.; Islam, M.; Saidur, R.; Rahim, N.; Fayaz, H. A review on global solar energy policy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2149–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Iglesias, G.; Carballo, R. Wave resource in El Hierro—An island towards energy self-sufficiency. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Nacer, T.; Hamidat, A.; Nadjemi, O. A comprehensive method to assess the feasibility of renewable energy on Algerian dairy farms. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3631–3642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. González-González, A.; Collares-Pereira, M.; Cuadros, F.; Fartaria, T. Energy self-sufficiency through hybridization of biogas and photovoltaic solar energy: An application for an Iberian pig slaughterhouse. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. San Cristóbal, J.R. Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: The Vikor method. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Yuksel, I.; Kaygusuz, K. Renewable energy sources for clean and sustainable energy policies in Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4132–4144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Kiplagat, J.K.; Wang, R.Z.; Li, T.X. Renewable energy in Kenya: Resource potential and status of exploitation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2960–2973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. He, G.; Lu, Y.; Mol, A.P.; Beckers, T. Changes and challenges: China’s environmental management in transition. Environ. Dev. 2012, 3, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Ran, R. Perverse incentive structure and policy implementation gap in China’s local environmental politics. In Local Environmental Politics in China; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 15–37. [Google Scholar]
  164. Musall, F.D.; Kuik, O. Local acceptance of renewable energy—A case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3252–3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P.; Barnett, J.; Burningham, K.; Cass, N.; Devine-Wright, H.; Speller, G.; Barton, J.; Evans, B.; Heath, Y. Symmetries, expectations, dynamics and contexts: A framework for understanding public engagement with renewable energy projects. In Renewable Energy and the Public; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  166. Devine-Wright, P. Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy technologies: Breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Devine-Wright, P. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  168. Chen, H.; Yada, R. Nanotechnologies in agriculture: New tools for sustainable development. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 22, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Oh, T.H.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Selvaraj, J.; Teo, S.C.; Chua, S.C. Energy policy and alternative energy in Malaysia: Issues and challenges for sustainable growth—An update. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 3021–3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Ullah, A.; Ahmed, M.; Raza, S.A.; Ali, S. A threshold approach to sustainable development: Nonlinear relationship between renewable energy consumption, natural resource rent, and ecological footprint. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 295, 113073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X. Greenware: Greening cloud-scale data centers to maximize the use of renewable energy. In Proceedings of the Middleware 2011: ACM/IFIP/USENIX 12th International Middleware Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–16 December 2011; Proceedings 12. pp. 143–164. [Google Scholar]
  173. Ceschia, E.; Béziat, P.; Dejoux, J.-F.; Aubinet, M.; Bernhofer, C.; Bodson, B.; Buchmann, N.; Carrara, A.; Cellier, P.; Di Tommasi, P. Management effects on net ecosystem carbon and GHG budgets at European crop sites. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Mohammadi, A.; Omid, M. Economical analysis and relation between energy inputs and yield of greenhouse cucumber production in Iran. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Astariz, S.; Iglesias, G. The economics of wave energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Kanase-Patil, A.; Saini, R.; Sharma, M. Integrated renewable energy systems for off grid rural electrification of remote area. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 1342–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Wainaina, S.; Awasthi, M.K.; Sarsaiya, S.; Chen, H.; Singh, E.; Kumar, A.; Ravindran, B.; Awasthi, S.K.; Liu, T.; Duan, Y. Resource recovery and circular economy from organic solid waste using aerobic and anaerobic digestion technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 301, 122778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Nanda, S.; Berruti, F. A technical review of bioenergy and resource recovery from municipal solid waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 403, 123970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Esen, M.; Yuksel, T. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable energy sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build. 2013, 65, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Acar, C.; Dincer, I. Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods from renewable and non-renewable sources. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Asmelash, H.B. Energy subsidies and WTO dispute settlement: Why only renewable energy subsidies are challenged. J. Int. Econ. Law 2015, 18, 261–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Cosbey, A.; Mavroidis, P.C. A turquoise mess: Green subsidies, blue industrial policy and renewable energy: The case for redrafting the subsidies agreement of the WTO. J. Int. Econ. Law 2014, 17, 11–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. LaCroix, C.J. Urban agriculture and other green uses: Remaking the shrinking city. Urban Lawyer 2010, 42, 225–285. [Google Scholar]
  184. Mendonça, M.; Lacey, S.; Hvelplund, F. Stability, participation and transparency in renewable energy policy: Lessons from Denmark and the United States. In Renewable Energy; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; Volume 4, pp. 429–457. [Google Scholar]
  185. Ghimire, L.P.; Kim, Y. An analysis on barriers to renewable energy development in the context of Nepal using AHP. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 446–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Stokes, L.C. The politics of renewable energy policies: The case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy 2013, 56, 490–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Hernandez, R.R.; Easter, S.; Murphy-Mariscal, M.L.; Maestre, F.T.; Tavassoli, M.; Allen, E.B.; Barrows, C.W.; Belnap, J.; Ochoa-Hueso, R.; Ravi, S. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 766–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Castillo, A.; Gayme, D.F. Grid-scale energy storage applications in renewable energy integration: A survey. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 87, 885–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Bevrani, H.; Ghosh, A.; Ledwich, G. Renewable energy sources and frequency regulation: Survey and new perspectives. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2010, 4, 438–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Mohammed, Y.; Mustafa, M.; Bashir, N. Hybrid renewable energy systems for off-grid electric power: Review of substantial issues. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 35, 527–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Pirasteh, G.; Saidur, R.; Rahman, S.; Rahim, N. A review on development of solar drying applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Abdmouleh, Z.; Alammari, R.A.; Gastli, A. Review of policies encouraging renewable energy integration & best practices. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 249–262. [Google Scholar]
  193. Kammen, D.M.; Sunter, D.A. City-integrated renewable energy for urban sustainability. Science 2016, 352, 922–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Specht, K.; Siebert, R.; Hartmann, I.; Freisinger, U.B.; Sawicka, M.; Werner, A.; Thomaier, S.; Henckel, D.; Walk, H.; Dierich, A. Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. De Bon, H.; Parrot, L.; Moustier, P. Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Diao, X.; Hazell, P.; Thurlow, J. The role of agriculture in African development. World Dev. 2010, 38, 1375–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Chen, Y.; Yang, G.; Sweeney, S.; Feng, Y. Household biogas use in rural China: A study of opportunities and constraints. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Odum, H.T. Energy, ecology, and economics. In Ecological Vignettes; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 199–215. [Google Scholar]
  199. Goldemberg, J.; Coelho, S.T.; Guardabassi, P. The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. In Renewable Energy; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; Volume 3, pp. 321–345. [Google Scholar]
  200. Saez, E.; Zucman, G. Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data. Q. J. Econ. 2016, 131, 519–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Walters, R. Crime, bio-agriculture and the exploitation of hunger. In Transnational Environmental Crime; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 359–378. [Google Scholar]
  202. Hussain, M.; Butt, A.R.; Uzma, F.; Ahmed, R.; Irshad, S.; Rehman, A.; Yousaf, B. A comprehensive review of climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation on environmental and natural calamities in Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. García-Olivares, A.; Solé, J.; Osychenko, O. Transportation in a 100% renewable energy system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 158, 266–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Lior, N. Sustainable energy development: The present (2009) situation and possible paths to the future. Energy 2010, 35, 3976–3994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Hernandez, R.R.; Hoffacker, M.K.; Murphy-Mariscal, M.L.; Wu, G.C.; Allen, M.F. Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 13579–13584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Mondal, M.A.H.; Denich, M. Assessment of renewable energy resources potential for electricity generation in Bangladesh. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2401–2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Subhadra, B.; Edwards, M. An integrated renewable energy park approach for algal biofuel production in United States. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4897–4902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Sen, S.; Ganguly, S. Opportunities, barriers and issues with renewable energy development—A discussion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 1170–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Shin, S.; Tae, S.; Lee, B. Estimate of the carbon dioxide uptake by the urban green space for a carbon–neutral sejong city in korea. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2011, 2, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Pasqualetti, M.J. Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. Geogr. Rev. 2011, 101, 201–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Chen, F.; Lu, S.-M.; Tseng, K.-T.; Lee, S.-C.; Wang, E. Assessment of renewable energy reserves in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2511–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Qambrani, N.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Won, S.; Shim, S.; Ra, C. Biochar properties and eco-friendly applications for climate change mitigation, waste management, and wastewater treatment: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Qadir, M.; Wichelns, D.; Raschid-Sally, L.; McCornick, P.G.; Drechsel, P.; Bahri, A.; Minhas, P. The challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Kacprzak, M.; Neczaj, E.; Fijałkowski, K.; Grobelak, A.; Grosser, A.; Worwag, M.; Rorat, A.; Brattebo, H.; Almås, Å.; Singh, B.R. Sewage sludge disposal strategies for sustainable development. Environ. Res. 2017, 156, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Wahaab, R.A.; Mahmoud, M.; van Lier, J.B. Toward achieving sustainable management of municipal wastewater sludge in Egypt: The current status and future prospective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 127, 109880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Said, N.; El-Shatoury, S.; Díaz, L.; Zamorano, M. Quantitative appraisal of biomass resources and their energy potential in Egypt. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 24, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Shen, Y.; Linville, J.L.; Urgun-Demirtas, M.; Mintz, M.M.; Snyder, S.W. An overview of biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the United States: Challenges and opportunities towards energy-neutral WWTPs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 346–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Rahman, S.M.; Khondaker, A.; Hasan, M.A.; Reza, I. Greenhouse gas emissions from road transportation in Saudi Arabia-a challenging frontier. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 812–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Stoms, D.M.; Dashiell, S.L.; Davis, F.W. Siting solar energy development to minimize biological impacts. Renew. Energy 2013, 57, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Buehler, R.; Pucher, J. Sustainable transport in Freiburg: Lessons from Germany’s environmental capital. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2011, 5, 43–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Sen, R.; Bhattacharyya, S.C. Off-grid electricity generation with renewable energy technologies in India: An application of HOMER. Renew. Energy 2014, 62, 388–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Timilsina, G.R.; Kurdgelashvili, L.; Narbel, P.A. Solar energy: Markets, economics and policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 449–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Ikram, M.; Zhang, Q.; Sroufe, R.; Shah, S.Z.A. Towards a sustainable environment: The nexus between ISO 14001, renewable energy consumption, access to electricity, agriculture and CO2 emissions in SAARC countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 22, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Paraušić, V.; Domazet, I. Cluster development and innovative potential in Serbian agriculture. Eкoнoмикa Пoљoпpивpeдe 2018, 65, 1159–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Phongthiya, T.; Malik, K.; Niesten, E.; Anantana, T. Innovation intermediaries for university-industry R&D collaboration: Evidence from science parks in Thailand. J. Technol. Transf. 2022, 47, 1885–1920. [Google Scholar]
  226. Mitigation, C.C. IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. In Renew. Energy; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; Volume 20. [Google Scholar]
  227. Edenhofer, O.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y.; Seyboth, K.; Kadner, S.; Zwickel, T.; Eickemeier, P.; Hansen, G.; Schlömer, S.; von Stechow, C. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  228. Angelis-Dimakis, A.; Biberacher, M.; Dominguez, J.; Fiorese, G.; Gadocha, S.; Gnansounou, E.; Guariso, G.; Kartalidis, A.; Panichelli, L.; Pinedo, I. Methods and tools to evaluate the availability of renewable energy sources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1182–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Salami, A.; Kamara, A.B.; Brixiova, Z. Smallholder Agriculture in East Africa: Trends, Constraints and Opportunities; African Development Bank: Tunis, Tunisia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  230. Ghaffour, N.; Bundschuh, J.; Mahmoudi, H.; Goosen, M.F. Renewable energy-driven desalination technologies: A comprehensive review on challenges and potential applications of integrated systems. Desalination 2015, 356, 94–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Ellabban, O.; Abu-Rub, H.; Blaabjerg, F. Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 748–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Fudholi, A.; Sopian, K.; Ruslan, M.H.; Alghoul, M.; Sulaiman, M.Y. Review of solar dryers for agricultural and marine products. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Pedro, F.; Subosa, M.; Rivas, A.; Valverde, P. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development. 2019. Available online: http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/handle/20.500.12799/6533 (accessed on 24 September 2023).
  234. Upreti, G.; Timsina, J.; Maraseni, T.N. Achieving Water, Energy, and Food Security in Nepal Through Nexus Approach to Planning and Development. In Agriculture, Natural Resources and Food Security: Lessons from Nepal; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 397–414. [Google Scholar]
  235. Falkner, R. The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. Int. Aff. 2016, 92, 1107–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Luthra, S.; Kumar, S.; Garg, D.; Haleem, A. Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 762–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Kumar, S.; Sahoo, S.; Lim, W.M.; Kraus, S.; Bamel, U. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in business and management research: A contemporary overview. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 178, 121599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Gunnarsdottir, I.; Davidsdottir, B.; Worrell, E.; Sigurgeirsdottir, S. Review of indicators for sustainable energy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 133, 110294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I.; Streimikiene, D.; Lekavicius, V.; Balezentis, T. Energy poverty indicators: A systematic literature review and comprehensive analysis of integrity. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 67, 102756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Lähtinen, K.; Myllyviita, T.; Leskinen, P.; Pitkänen, S.K. A systematic literature review on indicators to assess local sustainability of forest energy production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 1202–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Framework of SALSA for systematic literature search and review.
Figure 1. Framework of SALSA for systematic literature search and review.
Sustainability 15 14307 g001
Figure 2. PRISMA steps for the appraisal phase.
Figure 2. PRISMA steps for the appraisal phase.
Sustainability 15 14307 g002
Figure 3. Published papers by subjects.
Figure 3. Published papers by subjects.
Sustainability 15 14307 g003
Figure 4. The number of documents published by type of document.
Figure 4. The number of documents published by type of document.
Sustainability 15 14307 g004
Figure 5. Number of published papers by country.
Figure 5. Number of published papers by country.
Sustainability 15 14307 g005
Table 1. List of authors with most published papers.
Table 1. List of authors with most published papers.
Author NameNumber of Papers
Raihan, A.5
Chen, B.4
Alola, A.A.3
Canellas, L.P.3
Farhana, S.3
Faruk, O.3
Hasan, M.A.U.3
Muhtasim, D.A.3
Olivares, F.L.3
Rahman, M.3
Styles, D.3
Table 2. Numbers published documents by sources.
Table 2. Numbers published documents by sources.
Source TitleNumber of Papers
Journal of cleaner production19
Sustainability switzerland14
Ecological indicators12
Iop conference series earth and environmental science11
Science of the total environment10
Energies8
Journal of environmental management7
Resources conservation and recycling7
Environmental science and pollution research6
Renewable energy6
Bioenergy research5
Biomass and bioenergy5
Energy policy5
Renewable and sustainable energy reviews5
Table 3. Number of papers published by years.
Table 3. Number of papers published by years.
YearNumber of Papers
202347
202260
202149
202036
201937
201834
201725
201628
201527
201424
201313
201220
201122
201010
Table 4. Indicators of renewable sustainable energy in agriculture.
Table 4. Indicators of renewable sustainable energy in agriculture.
DimensionIndicatorsReferences
EconomicalCapital investment (USD/kWh)[23,59,60]
EconomicalProductive energy uses[61,62,63,64]
EconomicalEmployment generation[65,66,67]
EconomicalInvestment cost[68,69,70]
EconomicalMaintenance cost[69,71,72]
EconomicalApproximate lifetime[54,73]
EconomicalAverage personal income[49,63,74]
EconomicalUnemployment rate[65,75,76]
EconomicalAverage daily per capita water use (liter) (excluding industrial use)[77,78,79]
EconomicalElectricity consumption per person[80,81,82]
EconomicalTotal gross electricity generation[80,82,83]
EconomicalPrimary production of renewable energy[84,85,86]
EconomicalGreenhouse gas emissions from energy sector[87,88,89,90]
EconomicalElectrical capacity—combustible fuels[91,92,93]
EconomicalElectrical capacity—hydro, wind, solar[89,94,95]
EconomicalInflation rate[96,97,98]
EconomicalEconomic growth rate[70,82,99]
EnvironmentEmission of CO2 per kWh electricity in kg/kWh[48,100]
EnvironmentFuels displaced[101,102,103]
EnvironmentContamination factor[80,82,104,105]
EnvironmentAmount of pollutant volume[106,107,108]
EnvironmentThe proportion of land use[109,110,111]
EnvironmentEffectiveness in increasing employment[69,82,112]
EnvironmentSafety of using the energy[82,90,113]
EnvironmentHelp in social improvement[82,114,115]
EnvironmentGreen resource index[62,80,116,117]
EnvironmentPermeable rate in urban lands[118,119]
EnvironmentPer capita CO2 emissions[48,120,121]
EnvironmentProportion of slightly polluted rivers[80,122]
EnvironmentReservoir water quality[89,123,124]
EnvironmentTap water quality[124,125,126]
EnvironmentDaily waste production[105,127,128]
EnvironmentRecycling ratio for solid waste[129,130,131]
EnvironmentSolid waste composted[131,132,133]
EnvironmentUtilization rate for renewable resources (bottom ashes)[134,135,136]
EnvironmentStringency of environmental regulation[137,138,139]
EnvironmentEnforcement of environmental regulation[140,141,142]
EnvironmentQuality of the natural environment[90,143,144]
EnvironmentRenewable energy consumption[69,86,90]
EnvironmentShare of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption[145,146,147]
EnvironmentShare of renewable in power production[76,100,120]
InstitutionalManagement capability required[148,149,150]
InstitutionalOperation and maintenance skill required[63,151,152]
InstitutionalConsistency with the international policies[153,154,155]
InstitutionalAssistance in complete self-sufficiency[156,157,158]
InstitutionalDegree of dependence on energy imports[159,160,161]
InstitutionalEnforcement of local environmental plans[162,163,164]
InstitutionalCitizen participation in major planning and decision making[165,166,167]
InstitutionalJoint international cooperation regarding sustainable development (SD)[168,169,170]
InstitutionalEnvironmental and ecological budget ratio to total budget[171,172,173]
InstitutionalSocial welfare expenditure ratio to total expenditure[174,175,176]
InstitutionalGovernment expenditure on pollution prevention and resource recycling[138,177,178]
InstitutionalRatio of completed assessments to initiated assessments[179,180]
InstitutionalAppellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution[181,182,183]
InstitutionalTransparency of government policymaking[184,185,186]
InstitutionalGovernment effectiveness[49,70,80]
InstitutionalRegulatory quality[187,188,189]
InstitutionalGDP per capita[48,145]
SocialAvailability of subsidy in % considering life time energy cost[54,190,191]
SocialAccess to credit[63,82,192]
SocialUrban population density[193,194,195]
SocialNumber of households below the poverty line[63,196,197]
SocialWealth gap[198,199,200]
SocialCrime rate[142,199,201]
SocialAnnual casualties from public disasters[115,202]
SocialAnnual number of transportation accidents[203,204]
SocialPublic facility area ratio to urban land areas[205,206]
SocialPer capita park and green areas[116,207,208]
SocialRiverside park and green area per person[209,210,211]
SocialSewerage and waste removal efficiency[212,213,214]
SocialRate of sanitary sewerage to total sewerage system[215,216,217]
SocialPer capita pedestrian walkway index[218,219,220]
SocialAvailability of latest technologies[86,90,221]
SocialAffordability of financial services[66,208,222]
SocialCapacity for innovation[168,223]
SocialCompany spending on R&D[49,83,145]
SocialUniversity–industry collaboration in R&D[224,225]
TechnicalEnergy availability[86,90]
TechnicalOverall efficiency[69,80,90]
TechnicalTechnical standards[70,226,227]
TechnicalDaily availability of services[82,228]
TechnicalEase of access to the required technology[152,229,230]
TechnicalHelp in meeting energy needs[82,90,231]
TechnicalConstruction time[69,179,232]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bathaei, A.; Štreimikienė, D. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Agriculture: Review of Indicators. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914307

AMA Style

Bathaei A, Štreimikienė D. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Agriculture: Review of Indicators. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914307

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bathaei, Ahmad, and Dalia Štreimikienė. 2023. "Renewable Energy and Sustainable Agriculture: Review of Indicators" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914307

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop