IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v424y2020ics0304380020300934.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the sustainability of four greenhouse vegetable production ecosystems based on an analysis of emergy and social characteristics”

Author

Listed:
  • Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza
  • Amiri, Zahra
  • Campbell, Daniel E.

Abstract

The use of emergy to evaluate the sustainability of greenhouse systems leads to management recommendations to increase the sustainability of production in these systems. In this study, four greenhouse systems for cucumber, tomato, bell pepper, and eggplant production, located in Jiroft city, Iran, were evaluated using emergy sustainability indices. To accomplish this study, 56, 31, 19, and 12 greenhouses were selected for cucumber, tomato, bell pepper, and eggplant production, respectively. Analysis of twelve emergy indices and a study of the social characteristics of the producers using Analytic Hierarchy Analysis showed that the sustainability of the cucumber production system was greater than that of the other three systems. The calculated unit emergy values for economic yield (UEVE) generally indicated that greenhouse systems were at least 100 times more sustainable than open farm systems for the production of different products, primarily because of drastically reduced soil erosion. The highest (5.10E+04 sej J−1 [4.96E+04, 5.25E+04]) and lowest (7.27E+03 sej J−1 [7.09E+03, 7.45E+03]) UEVE values were calculated for the bell pepper and cucumber systems, respectively. Also, cucumber producers had greenhouses with larger areas compared to the greenhouses used for the other crops examined in this study. The physiological characteristics of cucumber plants resulted in greater sustainability of this system, because the plants were able to capture more of the free renewable energy, had a higher production potential, and this production system made more efficient use of the workforce. In contrast, the highest proportion of purchased non-renewable resources reduced the sustainability of the eggplant production system compared to the other systems studied. Therefore, selection of a plant with more potential to use free local environmental energy, higher yield, and more efficient use of labor will lead to greater sustainability of greenhouse vegetable production systems. Sustainability can also be increased by paying attention to the socio-technical characteristics of the producers, the use of technologies to reduce non-renewable inputs to the greenhouse building, and by reducing the proportion of non-renewable inputs used overall.

Suggested Citation

  • Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza & Amiri, Zahra & Campbell, Daniel E., 2020. "Evaluation of the sustainability of four greenhouse vegetable production ecosystems based on an analysis of emergy and social characteristics”," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 424(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:424:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020300934
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380020300934
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nemecek, Thomas & Dubois, David & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Gaillard, Gérard, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 217-232, March.
    2. Agostinho, Feni & Diniz, Guaraci & Siche, Raúl & Ortega, Enrique, 2008. "The use of emergy assessment and the Geographical Information System in the diagnosis of small family farms in Brazil," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 37-57.
    3. Brown, Mark T. & Campbell, Daniel E. & De Vilbiss, Christopher & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2016. "The geobiosphere emergy baseline: A synthesis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 339(C), pages 92-95.
    4. Canakci, M. & Akinci, I., 2006. "Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 1243-1256.
    5. Ramalan, A. A. & Nwokeocha, C. U., 2000. "Effects of furrow irrigation methods, mulching and soil water suction on the growth, yield and water use efficiency of tomato in the Nigerian Savanna," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 317-330, August.
    6. Pishgar-Komleh, Seyyed Hassan & Omid, Mahmoud & Heidari, Mohammad Davoud, 2013. "On the study of energy use and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in greenhouse cucumber production in Yazd province," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 63-71.
    7. Zhang, L.X. & Yang, Z.F. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Emergy analysis of cropping-grazing system in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 3843-3855, July.
    8. Bastianoni, S. & Campbell, D.E. & Ridolfi, R. & Pulselli, F.M., 2009. "The solar transformity of petroleum fuels," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(1), pages 40-50.
    9. Wang, Xiaolong & Chen, Yuanquan & Sui, Peng & Gao, Wangsheng & Qin, Feng & Zhang, Jiansheng & Wu, Xia, 2014. "Emergy analysis of grain production systems on large-scale farms in the North China Plain based on LCA," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 66-78.
    10. Gupta, Mathala J & Chandra, Pitam, 2002. "Effect of greenhouse design parameters on conservation of energy for greenhouse environmental control," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 777-794.
    11. Nemecek, Thomas & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Dubois, David & Gaillard, Gérard & Schaller, Britta & Chervet, Andreas, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 233-245, March.
    12. Yildizhan, Hasan & Taki, Morteza, 2018. "Assessment of tomato production process by cumulative exergy consumption approach in greenhouse and open field conditions: Case study of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 401-408.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eyni-Nargeseh, Hamed & Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza & Rahimi-Moghaddam, Sajjad & Gilani, Abdolali & Damghani, Abdolmajid Mahdavi & Azizi, Khosro, 2023. "Which rice farming system is more environmentally friendly in Khuzestan province, Iran? A study based on emergy analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 481(C).
    2. Xue Wu & Yaliu Yang & Conghu Liu & Guowei Xu & Yuxia Guo & Fan Liu & Yuan Wang, 2021. "Sustainability of Regional Agroecological Economic System Based on Emergy Theory: A Case Study of Anhui Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Stan Selbonne & Loïc Guindé & François Causeret & Pierre Chopin & Jorge Sierra & Régis Tournebize & Jean-Marc Blazy, 2023. "How to Measure the Performance of Farms with Regard to Climate-Smart Agriculture Goals? A Set of Indicators and Its Application in Guadeloupe," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Fartout Enayat, Fatemeh & Ghanbari, Seyed Ahmad & Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza & Seyedabadi, Esmaeel, 2023. "Emergy ecological footprint analysis of Yaghooti grape production in the Sistan region of Iran," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 481(C).
    5. Hamidreza Shahhoseini & Mahmoud Ramroudi & Hossein Kazemi, 2023. "Emergy analysis for sustainability assessment of potato agroecosystems (case study: Golestan province, Iran)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6393-6418, July.
    6. Cui Wang & Yingyan Zhang & Conghu Liu & Fagang Hu & Shuling Zhou & Juan Zhu, 2021. "Emergy-Based Assessment and Suggestions for Sustainable Development of Regional Ecological Economy: A Case Study of Anhui Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zadehdabagh, Nasim & Monavari, Seyed Masoud & Kargari, Nargess & Taghavi, Lobat & Pirasteh, Saeid, 2022. "Sustainability of agroecosystems by indices: A comparative study between indicators of ecological footprint sustainability and emergy analysis; a case study in Dez catchment, Iran," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 474(C).
    2. Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Rafiee, Shahin & Omid, Mahmoud & Mousazadeh, Hossein, 2013. "Reduction of CO2 emission by improving energy use efficiency of greenhouse cucumber production using DEA approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 676-682.
    3. B. Sarkar & B. Das & P. K. Sundaram & S. S. Mali & A. P. Anurag & A. Upadhyaya & N. Chandra & B. P. Bhatt & A. Kumar, 2023. "Energy input–output analysis and greenhouse gas emission in okra and tomato production in Chotanagpur plateau region of India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12945-12964, November.
    4. Eyni-Nargeseh, Hamed & Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza & Rahimi-Moghaddam, Sajjad & Gilani, Abdolali & Damghani, Abdolmajid Mahdavi & Azizi, Khosro, 2023. "Which rice farming system is more environmentally friendly in Khuzestan province, Iran? A study based on emergy analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 481(C).
    5. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    6. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    7. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Rafiee, Shahin & Omid, Mahmoud & Yousefi, Marziye & Movahedi, Mehran, 2013. "Modeling of energy consumption and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in wheat production in Esfahan province of Iran using artificial neural networks," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 333-338.
    9. Wu, Xihui & Wu, Faqi & Tong, Xiaogang & Wu, Jia & Sun, Lu & Peng, Xiaoyu, 2015. "Emergy and greenhouse gas assessment of a sustainable, integrated agricultural model (SIAM) for plant, animal and biogas production: Analysis of the ecological recycle of wastes," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 40-50.
    10. Bonilla, Silvia H. & Papalardo, Fábio & Tassinari, Celso A. & Sacomano, Jose B. & de Carvalho, Fabio Romeu, 2019. "Contribution of the Paraconsistent Tri-Annotated Logic to emergy accounting and decision making," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 393(C), pages 98-106.
    11. Ji Chai & Zhanqi Wang & Hongwei Zhang, 2017. "Integrated Evaluation of Coupling Coordination for Land Use Change and Ecological Security: A Case Study in Wuhan City of Hubei Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Pradeleix, L. & Roux, P. & Bouarfa, S. & Bellon-Maurel, V., 2022. "Multilevel environmental assessment of regional farming activities with Life Cycle Assessment: Tackling data scarcity and farm diversity with Life Cycle Inventories based on Agrarian System Diagnosis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    13. Houshyar, Ehsan & Grundmann, Philipp, 2017. "Environmental impacts of energy use in wheat tillage systems: A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study in Iran," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 11-24.
    14. Liang, Long & Lal, Rattan & Ridoutt, Bradley G. & Zhao, Guishen & Du, Zhangliu & Li, Li & Feng, Dangyang & Wang, Liyuan & Peng, Peng & Hang, Sheng & Wu, Wenliang, 2018. "Multi-indicator assessment of a water-saving agricultural engineering project in North Beijing, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 34-46.
    15. Berti, Marisol & Johnson, Burton & Ripplinger, David & Gesch, Russ & Aponte, Alfredo, 2017. "Environmental impact assessment of double- and relay-cropping with winter camelina in the northern Great Plains, USA," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-12.
    16. El Chami, D. & Daccache, A., 2015. "Assessing sustainability of winter wheat production under climate change scenarios in a humid climate — An integrated modelling framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 19-25.
    17. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.
    18. Forte, Annachiara & Zucaro, Amalia & De Vico, Gionata & Fierro, Angelo, 2016. "Carbon footprint of heliciculture: A case study from an Italian experimental farm," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-111.
    19. Murphy, Fionnuala & Devlin, Ger & McDonnell, Kevin, 2014. "Forest biomass supply chains in Ireland: A life cycle assessment of GHG emissions and primary energy balances," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-8.
    20. Tendall, Danielle M. & Gaillard, Gérard, 2015. "Environmental consequences of adaptation to climate change in Swiss agriculture: An analysis at farm level," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 40-51.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:424:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020300934. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.