Emergy-Based Adjustment of the Agricultural Structure in a Low-Carbon Economy in Manas County of China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. General Information about the Investigated Area
2.2. Current State of Water and Land Utilization in Manas County
Item | Land Area (m2) |
---|---|
Agriculture land | 6.193 × 109 |
Cash crop and food crop | 1.37 × 108 |
Cotton | 3.72 × 109 |
Forest land Grassland | 4.44 × 107 4.44 × 109 |
2.3. Sources of Data
2.4. Methodology
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Construction of an Optimization Model of Ecological and Economical Systems of Agroforestry and Grassland
3.2. Mathematical Modeling
3.2.1. The Standard Equation of the Mathematical Model
- was the decision variable (or variable);
- was the coefficient of the decision variables (or technical coefficient) under the constraint condition;
- was the resources threshold or production threshold for item (the constrain for the items on the right side of the equation);
- was the total productivity coefficient of the variable or net productivity coefficient (or profit coefficient) of the objective function; and
- f was the decision objective.
3.2.2. Determination of the Decision Variables
Variables | Items | Irrigation Water | Unit Yield | Internal Circulation Energy Flow | Purchased Renewable Energy | Purchased Nonrenewable Energy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | Wheat | 5.60 × 1014 | 6.12 × 1015 | 1.62 × 1016 | 1.89 × 1016 | 8.87 × 1015 |
X2 | Corn | 4.07 × 1015 | 9.36 × 1015 | 1.53 × 1016 | 2.15 × 1016 | 1.01 × 1016 |
X3 | Rice | 1.42 × 1015 | 1.65 × 1015 | 1.56 × 1016 | 1.91 × 1016 | 6.24 × 1015 |
X4 | Cotton | 3.56 × 1015 | 2.75 × 1016 | 7.10 × 1014 | 6.38 × 1015 | 8.55 × 1015 |
X5 | Oil crop | 7.62 × 1014 | 5.15 × 1016 | 1.46 × 1016 | 1.74 × 1016 | 2.00 × 1015 |
X6 | Beet | 8.13 × 1014 | 1.05 × 1017 | 2.19 × 1016 | 2.45 × 1016 | 1.64 × 1016 |
X7 | Tomato | 3.56 × 1015 | 7.91 × 1016 | 7.10 × 1014 | 6.29 × 1015 | 1.18 × 1016 |
X8 | Grape | 5.60 × 1014 | 1.80 × 1016 | 1.53 × 1016 | 1.79 × 1016 | 1.08 × 1016 |
X9 | Poplar | 8.91 × 1014 | 1.28 × 1016 | 3.14 × 1010 | 6.84 × 1015 | 7.71 × 1015 |
X10 | Grass | 1.21 × 1014 | 2.43 × 1015 | 2.43 × 1015 | 3.62 × 1015 | 2.76 × 1013 |
3.2.3. Characterization of Different Objective Functions
- f1(x)
- = min = total water consumption energy abundance= 5.60 × 1014 X1 + 4.07 × 1015 X2 + 1.42 × 1015 X3 + 3.56 × 1015 X4 + 7.62 × 1014 X5 + 8.13 × 1014 X6 + 3.56 × 1015 X7 + 5.60 × 1014 X8 + 8.91 × 1014 X9 + 1.21 × 1014 X10
- f2(x)
- = max = total output= 6.12 × 1015 X1 + 9.36 × 1015 X2 + 1.65 × 1015 X3 + 2.75 × 1016 X4 + 5.15 × 1016 X5 + 1.05 × 1017 X6 + 7.91 × 1016 X7 + 1.80 × 1016 X8 + 1.28 × 1016 X9 + (2.43 × 1015 + 4.70 × 106) X10
- f3(x)
- = max = flow of energy within the whole system = domestic animals + animal feces + deciduous leaves + crop residues f1(x) = min + grass feedstock= 1.62 × 1016 X1 + 1.53 × 1016 X2 + 1.56 × 1016 X3 + 7.10 × 1014 X4 + 1.46 × 1016 X5 + 2.19 × 1016 X6 + 7.10 × 1014 X7 + 1.53 × 1016 X8 + 3.14 × 1010 X9 + 2.43 × 1015 X10
- f4(x)
- = min = the renewable energy purchased for the whole system= 1.89 × 1016 X1 + 2.15 × 1016 X2 + 1.91 × 1016 X3 + 6.38 × 1015 X4 + 1.74 × 1016 X5 + 2.45 × 1016 X6 + 6.29 × 1015 X7 + 1.79 × 1016 X8 + 6.84 × 1015 X9 + (3.62 × 1015 + 1.55 × 1016) X10
- f5(x)
- = min = the non-renewable energy purchased for the whole system= 2.78 × 1016 X1 + 3.15 × 1016 X2 + 2.52 × 1016 X3 + 1.49 × 1016 X4 + 1.94 × 1016 X5 + 4.11 × 1016 X6 + 1.82 × 1016 X7 + 2.87 × 1016 X8 + 1.46 × 1016 X9 + (2.24 × 1016 + 3.65 × 1015) X10
3.2.4. Analysis of Constraints
- (1)
- Grain yields and the constraints on the growth area of agricultural and cash crops
- (2)
- Constraints of water and land resources
- (3)
- Constraints of artificial grassland growth
3.3. The Structural Optimization and Adjustment of the Agroforestry and Grassland System in Manas County
3.3.1. Optimization Scenario for the Agroecosystem in Manas County
Variables | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ItemO | Wheat | Maize | Cotton | Oil crop | Sugar Beet | Tomato | Grape | Forest | Grassland |
Optimal value | 401 | 8575 | 18,197 | 219 | 4011 | 2212 | 739 | 6547 | 16,663 |
3.3.2. Comparison of the Emergy Parameters between Systems before and after Structural Optimization
3.3.3. Emergy Yield Ratio
3.3.4. Emergy Loading Ratio
Parameters | Notes | Before and after optimization | |
---|---|---|---|
Emergy yield ratio (EYR) | Y/NP + RP | 0.49 | 1.48 |
Environment loading ratio (ELR) | (NP + RP + NR)/RR | 4.96 | 11.4 |
Emergy investment ratio(EIR) | (NP + RP)/(NR + RR) | 4.93 | 11.1 |
Water emergy cost (WEC) | Total water consumption/Y | 0.088 | 0.055 |
System self sustainability ratio (SSR) | (If−h + Ih−a + Ia−h + Ig−h)/(RPa + RPf + RPh + RPg) | 0.106 | 0.432 |
3.3.5. Emergy Investment Ratio
3.3.6. Water Emergy Cost
3.3.7. System Self-sustainability Ratio
3.3.8. Structural Comparative Advantage Index
3.4. Estimation of the Depreciation in Ecosystem Service Value of Grazing Mountainous Land in Manas County, XUAR
Total Area (hm2) | Organic Matter Content (t·a−1) | Nitrogen Content (t·a−1) | Value (Yuan·a−1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Grassland belt | 4.102 × 105 | 3.89 × 107 | 2.102 × 106 | 1.05 × 1011 |
Desert grassland belt | 3.32 × 107 | 1.94 × 106 | 9.12 × 1010 |
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
- Nakata, T.; Silva, D.; Rodionov, M. Application of energy system models for designing a low-carbon society. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2011, 37, 462–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.W.; Jia, X. Low-carbon economy and low-carbon food. Energy Procedia 2011, 5, 1099–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, S.L.; Li, R.H. Evaluation on sustainable food security in henan against the background of low-carbon economy. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2010, 1, 412–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parthan, B.; Osterkorn, M.; Kennedy, M.; John, H.; St. Bazilian, M.; Monga, P. Lessons for low-carbon energy transition: Experience from the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP). Energy Sustain. Dev. 2010, 14, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrés, M.S.; Cuadrado-Roura, J.R. Is growth of services an obstacle to productivity growth? A comparative analysis. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 2009, 20, 254–265. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, N. Adjustment strategies revisited: Agricultural change in the Welsh Marches. J. Rural Stud. 2009, 25, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handa, S. Structural adjustment policies, income distribution and poverty: A review of the Jamaican experience. World Dev. 1997, 25, 915–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Happe, K. Does structure matter? The impact of switching the agricultural policy regime on farm structures. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2008, 67, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry, S.; Cai, Y.L. Climate change and agriculture in China. Glob. Environ. Change 1996, 6, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, X.Q. Oasis Agriculture in Xinjiang; Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Science and Heath Press: Xinjiang Uygur, China, 2002; pp. 100–156. [Google Scholar]
- County Statistical Editing Office. Encyclopedia of Manas County of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region; Urumqi Autonomous District Press: Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Autonomous District Statistics office. Xinjing Survey and Statistics Encyclopedia; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rahmutulla, A.; Tashkin, J. Discussion on oasis conception and its classification. Arid Land Geogr. 2000, 23, 129–132. [Google Scholar]
- Odum, H.T. Emergy in Ecosystems. In Ecosystem Theory and Application; Poluin, N., Ed.; John Wiley Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Odum, H.T. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision-Making; John Wiley Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Agostinho, F.; Ambrósio, L.A.; Ortega, E. Assessment of a large watershed in Brazil using Emergy Evaluation and Geographical Information System. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221, 1209–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, X.B.; Ulgiati, S.; Yan, M.C.; Gao, W.S.; Zhang, X.S. Energy and emergy evaluation of bio-ethanol production from wheat in China. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 3882–3892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavalett, O.; Queiroz, J.F.; Orteg, E. Emergy assessment of integrated production systems of grains, pig and fish in small farms in the South Brazil. Ecol. Model. 2006, 193, 205–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, M.T.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy evaluations and environmental loading of electricity production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, J.F.; Diemont, S.A.W.; Powell, E.; Stanton, M.; Levy-Tacher, S. Emergy evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems with different scales and management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 115, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefroy, E.; Rydberg, T. Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in southwestern Australia. Ecol. Model. 2003, 161, 195–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rydberg, T.; Jansen, J. Comparison of horse and tractor traction using emergy analysis. Ecol. Eng. 2002, 19, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulgiata, S.; Brown, M.T. Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecol. Model. 1998, 108, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agostinhoa, F.; Diniz, G.; Sichec, R.; Ortegaa, E. The use of emergy assessment and the Geographical Information System in the diagnosis of small family farms in Brazil. Ecol. Model. 2008, 210, 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellini, C.; Bastianoni, S.; Granai, C.; Dal Bosco, A.; Brunetti, M. Sustainability of poultry production using the emergy approach: Comparison of conventional and organic rearing systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 114, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Q.D.; He, J.Q.; Chen, S.H. The Applied Linear Programming Method and the Supporting System; Qinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, F.C.; Odum, H.T.; Costanza, R. Energy criteria for water use. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. Div. 1980, 1, 185–203. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, G.C.; Wang, X.D.; Hu, X.C. The optimum model of the grain production structure in the ZangBu basin of Kangmanie County, Tibet. J. Mt. Sci. 2004, 1, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.F. Challenges and Strategies in the Water Recourse Development in the Manas River Reach; Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Science and Heath Press: Xinjiang Uygur, China, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, X.B.; Yan, M.C.; Gao, W.S. Emergy evaluation of eco-productive paradigm of artificial grassland-meat sheep breeding-company system in Chifeng city of Inner Mongolia. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2007, 9, 195–200. [Google Scholar]
- Bao, Y.S. Problems the animal husbandry of the inner Mongolia grassland is facing and the way to deal with them. J. Inner Mongolia Norm. Univ. 2002, 31, 44–47. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.C.; Fu, X.F.; Zheng, D. Emergy analysis for evaluating sustainability of Chinese economy. J. Nat. Resour. 2001, 4, 297–304. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, H.F.; Campbell, Daniel E.; Li, Z.A. Emergy synthesis of an agro-forest restoration system in lower subtropical China. Ecol. Eng. 2006, 27, 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, H.; Ouyang, Z.Y. Preliminary evaluation of forest ecosystem services functions and the ecological value. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 4, 481–484. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Wei, Y.M.; Sun, Y.Y. Effects of excessive grazing on grassland eco-system services valuation—a case study in Gansu Maqu County. J. Nat. Resour. 2006, 1, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.M. Appraisal of oasis ecologic economy based on energy analysis in the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Wei Autonomous Region. Bull. Water Soil Conserv. 2007, 1, 151–154. [Google Scholar]
© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Dong, X.; Zhang, Y.; Cui, W.; Xun, B.; Yu, B.; Ulgiati, S.; Zhang, X. Emergy-Based Adjustment of the Agricultural Structure in a Low-Carbon Economy in Manas County of China. Energies 2011, 4, 1428-1442. https://doi.org/10.3390/en4091428
Dong X, Zhang Y, Cui W, Xun B, Yu B, Ulgiati S, Zhang X. Emergy-Based Adjustment of the Agricultural Structure in a Low-Carbon Economy in Manas County of China. Energies. 2011; 4(9):1428-1442. https://doi.org/10.3390/en4091428
Chicago/Turabian StyleDong, Xiaobin, Yufang Zhang, Weijia Cui, Bin Xun, Baohua Yu, Sergio Ulgiati, and Xinshi Zhang. 2011. "Emergy-Based Adjustment of the Agricultural Structure in a Low-Carbon Economy in Manas County of China" Energies 4, no. 9: 1428-1442. https://doi.org/10.3390/en4091428