Study on the Relationship between Low-Carbon Circular Farming and Animal Husbandry Models and Human Well-Being: A Case Study of Yongchang County, Gansu Province
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Overview of the Study Area
2.2. Research Method
2.2.1. Functional Unit
2.2.2. System Boundary Diagram
2.3. Data Source
2.3.1. Forage and Feed System
2.3.2. Breeding System
2.3.3. Stage of Discarded Vegetable Processing
2.3.4. Biogas Project
2.3.5. Biogas Power Generation
2.3.6. Organic Fertilizer Production
2.4. Scenario Settings
2.5. Environmental Impact Category and Assessment Method
2.6. Comprehensive Evaluation and Analysis Method for Human Well-Being of Employees and Herdsmen
3. Result Analysis
3.1. Main Emission Results of LCA under the Two Scenarios
Environmental Emission Inventories under the Two Scenarios
3.2. Results of LCA Analysis
3.3. Comparative Study on the Well-Being of Enterprise Employees and the Well-Being of Herdsmen
3.4. Research on the Relationship between Low-Carbon Farming and Animal Husbandry Models and Human Well-Being
4. Discussion
4.1. Discussion on Low-Carbon Cycle Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Research
4.2. Complex Relationship between Low-Carbon Farming and Animal Husbandry Models and Human Well-Being
5. Conclusions
- In the two scenarios, the carbon dioxide emissions of the noncircular model are higher than those of the circular agriculture and animal husbandry model. The main reason is that the sheep manure is not treated in the noncircular model. The circular agriculture and animal husbandry model uses biogas power generation to replace the traditional coal-fired power supply, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions; thus, the circular agriculture and animal husbandry model is conducive to greenhouse gas emission reduction. Overall, compared to the noncircular model, the cyclic agriculture and animal husbandry model has lower global warming potential, acidification potential and eutrophication potential, but the toxicity index is slightly higher.
- The levels of well-being of enterprise employees and herdsmen differ, which is reflected mainly in income level, residential area and satisfaction with vegetables and meat. The average income of employees is higher than that of herdsmen, the average residential area is smaller, and the consumption of coal and electricity is lower; employees are more satisfied with meat and vegetables, while herdsmen report average satisfaction. In terms of education level, the average education level of employees is higher than that of herdsmen. Comparing the per capita income–environmental benefit values under the two scenarios, it is found that the IAP, IGWP and IEP indicators are higher in the circular model than in the noncircular model of agriculture and animal husbandry, thereby indicating that the biogas power generation model not only reduces the greenhouse gas emission potential but also improves human well-being.
- In the development of low-carbon industries, the combined effects of carbon emissions and environmental impacts must be considered. The biogas power generation model that is considered in this article realizes low carbon emission and high human well-being. Therefore, it is recommended that Yongchang County vigorously develop green and low-carbon circular agriculture on the basis of a reasonable analysis of the carbon emission reduction and environmental impact potential of various models. It is necessary to promote low-carbon recycling agriculture and animal husbandry models that are based on biogas power generation and strengthen the resource utilization of discarded vegetables, straw, livestock and poultry manure to achieve the “double carbon” goal and a win–win situation for human well-being.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IPCC. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Frame Work Convention on Climate Change. Adoption of the Paris Agreement; UN&FCCC: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Cerri, C.C.; Moreira, C.S.; Alves, P.A.; Raucci, G.S.; de Almeida Castigioni, B.; Mello, F.F.; Cerri, D.G.P.; Cerri, C.E.P. Assessing the carbon footprint of beef cattle in Brazil: A case study with 22 farms in the State of Mato Grosso. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2593–2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuñez, R.; Canales, A.; Oseguera, D.; Vasquez, M.A.; Chavarria, L.; Clewer, A.; Willer, H. FAO, Statistical Yearbook 2013: WORLD Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- O’Brien, D.; Bohan, A.; McHugh, N.; Shalloo, L. A life cycle assessment of the effect of intensification on the environmental impacts and resource use of grass-based sheep farming. Agric. Syst. 2016, 148, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/zh/#home (accessed on 17 May 2022).
- Song, Y.; An, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, X.; Sun, Y.; Bai, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Cao, B. General situation of dairy sheep industry and prospect analysis of Chinese dairy sheep industry. China Dairy 2019, 8, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
- Batalla, I.; Knudsen, M.T.; Mogensen, L.; del Hierro, Ó.; Pinto, M.; Hermansen, J.E. Carbon footprint of milk from sheep farming systems in Northern Spain including soil carbon sequestration in grasslands. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toro-Mujica, P.; Aguilar, C.; Vera, R.R.; Bas, F. Carbon footprint of sheep production systems in semi-arid zone of Chile: A simulation-based approach of productive scenarios and precipitation patterns. Agric. Syst. 2017, 157, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escribano, M.; Elghannam, A.; Mesias, F.J. Dairy sheep farms in semi-arid rangelands: A carbon footprint dilemma between intensification and land-based grazing. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 104600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boulding, K.E. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. In Proceedings of the 6th Resources for the Future Forum on Environmental Quality in A Growing Economy, Washington, DC, USA, 8–9 March 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, Y.; Luan, W.; Wang, H.; Yang, Y. Environmental and economic benefits of carbon emission reduction in animal husbandry via the circular economy: Case study of pig farming in Liaoning, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallo, M.; Borghi, A.D.; Strazza, C. Analysis of potential GHG emissions reductions from methane recovery in livestock farming. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2015, 8, 516–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, W.; Dong, X.; Wei, H.; Weng, B.; Liang, L.; Xu, Z.; Wang, X.; Wu, F.; Chen, Z.; Jin, Y.; et al. Is it true that the longer the extended industrial chain, the better the circular agriculture? A case study of circular agriculture industry company in Fuqing, Fujian. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 718–728. [Google Scholar]
- Škrinjarić, T. Empirical assessment of the circular economy of selected European countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robaina, M.; Villar, J.; Pereira, E.T. The determinants for a circular economy in Europe. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 12566–12578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nowakowski, P.; Król, A. The influence of preliminary processing of end-of-life tires on transportation cost and vehicle exhausts emissions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 24256–24269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vardopoulos, I.; Konstantopoulos, I.; Zorpas, A.A.; Limousy, L.; Bennici, S.; Inglezakis, V.J.; Voukkali, I. Sustainable metropolitan areas perspectives through assessment of the existing waste management strategies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 24305–24320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tomić, T.; Schneider, D.R. The role of energy from waste in circular economy and closing the loop concept—Energy analysis approach. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2018, 98, 268–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foschi, E.; D’Addato, F.; Bonoli, A. Plastic waste management: A comprehensive analysis of the current status to set up an after-use plastic strategy in Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 24328–24341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Tian, S.; Yuan, X.; Ma, Q.; Liu, M.; Li, Y.; Liu, J. Evaluation and optimization of a circular economy model integrating planting and breeding based on the coupling of emergy analysis and life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 62407–62420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Comprehensive Utilization System of Large and Medium Biogas; Beijing Forestry University: Beijing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ruiz, D.; Miguel, G.S.; Corona, B.; Gaitero, A.; Domínguez, A. Environmental and economic analysis of power generation in a thermophilic biogas plant. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 1418–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotz, C.A.; Montes, F.; Chianese, D.S. The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 1266–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, K.; Qian, W.; Zaman, A.U. Development of a cloud-based platform for footprint assessment in green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenner, A.E.; Kibert, C.J.; Woo, J.; Morque, S.; Razkenari, M.; Hakim, H.; Lu, X. The carbon footprint of buildings: A review of methodologies and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 1142–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavehei, E.; Jenkins, G.; Adame, M.; Lemckert, C. Carbon sequestration potential for mitigating the carbon footprint of green stormwater infrastructure. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 1179–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Dietz, T.; Jorgenson, A.K. Towards a new view of sustainable development: Human well-being and environmental stress. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 031001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Q.; Chen, H. The Relationship between Human Well-Being and Carbon Emissions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, D.; Liu, G. Human Development Performance Indicators and Empirical Analysis of Carbon Emissions. China’s Popul. Resour. Environ. 2011, 21, 73–79. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S. The driving effect of China’s human well-being changes and its temporal and spatial differentiation. Geogr. Sci. Prog. 2016, 35, 632–643. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Luo, H.; Lu, L. Coordination Analysis of Carbon Emissions and Economic Growth. J. Environ. Eng. Technol. 2017, 7, 517–524. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Luo, Y.; Wang, S. Spatial effects of economic performance on the carbon intensity of human well-being: The environmental Kuznets curve in Chinese provinces. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 681–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgenson, A.K. Inequality and the carbon intensity of human well-being. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015, 5, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgenson, A.K. Economic development and the carbon intensity of human well-being. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 186–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Chen, Y.; Sui, P.; Gao, W.; Qin, F.; Wu, X.; Xiong, J. Efficiency and sustainability analysis of biogas and electricity production from a large-scale biogas project in China: An emergy evaluation based on LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Liu, S.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Y. Agriculture and animal husbandry increased carbon footprint on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau during past three decades. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yongchang People’s Government. Overview of Yongchang. 2019. Available online: http://www.yongchang.gov.cn/zjyc/ycjj/ycgk (accessed on 17 May 2022).
- Bureau of Statistics of Yongchang. Statistical Bulletin of National Economic and Social Development of Yongchang County in 2020; Bureau of Statistics of Yongchang: Yongchang, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Du, S.; Li, H.; Bu, P. An effective model for the comprehensive utilization of agricultural organic waste resources-Gansu Yuansheng Company’s implementation of the circular economy industrialization project survey. Development 2017, 10, 56–58. [Google Scholar]
- Wiedmann, T.; Minx, J. A Definition of Carbon Footprint. CC Pertsova. Ecol. Econ. Res. Trends 2008, 2, 55–65. [Google Scholar]
- Cavalett, O.; Chagas, M.F.; Seabra, J.E.; Bonomi, A. Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 647–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, W. Analysis on the current situation and prospects of developing dairy sheep in Yongchang County. China’s Livest. Poult. Seed Ind. 2020, 16, 12–13. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, X.; Fu, D. Summary of Comprehensive Evaluation Methods of Multiple Indexes. Stat. Decis. 2004, 11, 119–121. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W.; Zhang, P.; Xu, Z.; Wei, H.; Lu, N.; Wang, X.; Weng, B.; Chen, Z.; Wu, F.; Dong, X. Life Cycle Environmental Impact Assessment of Circular Agriculture: A Case Study in Fuqing, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lamnatou, C.; Nicolaï, R.; Chemisana, D.; Cristofari, C.; Cancellieri, D. Biogas production by means of an anaerobic-digestion plant in France: LCA of greenhouse-gas emissions and other environmental indicators. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 670, 1226–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Xu, Y. Economic analysis of large-scale farm biogas power generation system considering environmental benefits based on LCA: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skorek-Osikowska, A.; Gamboa, M.M.; Iribarren, D.; García-Gusano, D.; Dufour, J. Thermodynamic, economic and environmental assessment of energy systems including the use of gas from manure fermentation in the context of the Spanish potential. Energy 2020, 200, 117452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hijazi, O.; Abdelsalam, E.; Samer, M.; Attia, Y.A.; Amer, B.M.A.; Amer, M.A.; Badr, M.; Bernhardt, H. Life cycle assessment of the use of nanomaterials in biogas production from anaerobic digestion of manure. Renew. Energ. 2020, 148, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, G.; Yin, X.; Zhao, J. Cognition and Comprehensive Evaluation of Human Well-being in Qinghai. Lake Basin Glacier Permafr. 2014, 36, 469–478. [Google Scholar]
- Pawar, B. Workplace spirituality and employee well-being: An empirical examination. Empl. Relat. 2016, 38, 975–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Wei, H.; Fan, W.; Wang, X.; Zhang, P.; Ren, J.; Lu, N.; Gao, Z.; Dong, X.; Kong, W. Relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being changes based on carbon flow—A case study of the Manas River Basin, Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 37, 100934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Subsystem | Input | Units | Quantity | Source of Standard | Output | Units | Quantity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
the forage and feed system | Biogas slurry for grass | kg | 1310 | Biomass processing and production | alfalfa | kg | 51 |
Diesel | kg | 752.3 | China(CN) | silage corn | kg | 216 | |
Electricity | MJ | 626.4 | China(CN) | ||||
Ground water | kg | 10,700 | EU-28 | ||||
Organic fertilizer | kg | 1014 | Organic fertilizer processing | ||||
Pesticides | kg | 3.05 | GLO | ||||
Corn seed | kg | 0.87 | EU-28 | ||||
dairy sheep farming | alfalfa | kg | 51 | forage systems | Manure | kg | 1310 |
concentrated feed | kg | 21 | Compete feed | sheep | kg | 75 | |
Diesel | kg | 1.42 | China (CN) | Waste water | kg | 214 | |
Electricity | MJ | 257.1 | China (CN) | Sheep milk | kg | 75 | |
Grassland | m2 | 133.3 | Grassland | ||||
silage corn | kg | 216 | forage systems | ||||
water | kg | 857.1 | EU-28 | ||||
discarded vegetable processing | Discarded vegetables | kg | 1379 | forage systems | Water from discarded vegetables | kg | 1103.2 |
water | kg | 1103 | Compete feed | Residue from discarded vegetables | kg | 165.5 | |
Diesel | kg | 350 | China (CN) | ||||
Electricity | MJ | 55 | China (CN) | ||||
Biogas project | water from discarded vegetables | kg | 1103.2 | Discarded vegetables processing | Biogas | kg | 51.4 |
Electricity | MJ | 118.8 | China(CN) | Biogas residue | kg | 1051 | |
Manure | kg | 1310 | Dairy sheep breeding | Biogas slurry for grass | kg | 1310 | |
Thermal energy from biogas | MJ | 850.1 | |||||
Biogas power generation | water from discarded vegetables | kg | 1103.2 | Discarded vegetables processing | Biogas residue | kg | 1051 |
Electricity | MJ | 118.8 | China(CN) | Biogas slurry for grass | kg | 1310 | |
Manure | kg | 1310 | Dairy sheep breeding | Electricity for Biogas | MJ | 9.8 | |
Electricity for feed | MJ | 100.8 | |||||
Electricity for Sheep milk | MJ | 100.8 | |||||
Electricity for organic fertilizer processing | MJ | 91 | |||||
organic fertilizer processing | Biogas residue | kg | 1051 | Biomass processing and production | Organic fertilizer | kg | 1014 |
Residue from discarded vegetables | kg | 165.48 | discarded vegetables processing | Water vapour | kg | 1622 | |
Electricity | MJ | 91 | China(CN) | ||||
Humic acid | kg | 276.3 | soil | ||||
Manure | kg | 259 | Dairy sheep breeding | ||||
Mineral waste | kg | 39.47 | Dairy sheep breeding | ||||
Sludge | kg | 788.3 | soil | ||||
Water | kg | 788.3 | EU-28 |
Scenarios | Description |
---|---|
S1 | Single Forage and Feed system, single dairy sheep breeding, untreated discarded vegetables, single biogas production and single organic fertilizer processing |
S2 | Forage and Feed system + dairy sheep breeding + discarded vegetable treatment + biogas power generation + organic fertilizer processing |
Heading | Categories | S1 | S2 |
---|---|---|---|
Inorganic emissions | Total | 1.12 × 104 | 7.47 × 103 |
CO2 | 8.91 × 102 | 6.47 × 102 | |
CO2(aviation) | 1.66 × 10−3 | 1.63 × 10−3 | |
CO2(biotic) | 2.26 × 10 | 1.70 × 10 | |
CO2(land use change) | 4.55 × 10−1 | 4.20 × 10−1 | |
CO2(peat oxidation) | 4.38 × 10−6 | 5.79 × 10−6 | |
Fluoride | 2.52 × 10−5 | 2.35 × 10−5 | |
NO2 | 9.57 × 10−2 | 5.48 × 10−3 | |
N2O | 3.46 × 10−1 | 1.47 × 10−2 | |
SO2 | 2.78 | 2.50 | |
Organic emissions | Total | 7.03 | 6.52 |
Methane | 5.67 | 5.27 | |
Methane(biotic) | 5.55 × 10−3 | 1.58× 10−2 | |
Paticles | Total | 1.12 | 8.97× 10−1 |
PM10 | 5.21 × 10−4 | 4.63× 10−4 | |
PM2.5 | 2.77 × 10−1 | 2.06 × 10−1 | |
Pesticides | Total | 1.03× 10−6 | 4.74 × 10−7 |
Radioactive emissions | Total | −8.60 × 10−11 | −8.77 × 10−11 |
Result Type | Category | S1 | S2 | Units |
---|---|---|---|---|
Eigenvalue analysis | GWP 100 years | 1.14 × 103 | 7.87 × 102 | kg CO2eq. |
AP | 5.54 | 4.14 | kg SO2eq. | |
EP | 6.60 × 10−1 | 3.25 × 10−1 | kg P eq. | |
ODP, steady state | 1.65 × 10−12 | 2.15 × 10−12 | kg R11 eq. | |
POCP | 1.42 × 10−2 | 4.65 × 10−2 | kg Ethene eq. | |
ADP elements | 1.02 × 10−3 | 1.16 × 10−3 | kg Sb eq. | |
ADP fossil | 6.17 × 104 | 5.82 × 104 | MJ | |
FAETP | 40.4 | 55.2 | kg DCB eq. | |
HTP | 2.40 × 102 | 3.87 × 102 | kg DCB eq. | |
MAETP | 1.41 × 105 | 1.52 × 105 | kg DCB eq. | |
TETP | 3.67 | 3.49 | kg DCB eq. | |
standardized value results | GWP 100 years | 2.52 × 10−10 | 1.95 × 10−10 | kg CO2eq |
AP | 1.41 × 10−10 | 1.06 × 10−10 | kg SO2eq. | |
EP | 2.93 × 10−11 | 1.91 × 10−11 | kg Phoshate eq. | |
ODP, steady state | 4.50 × 10−20 | 5.88 × 10−20 | kg R11 eq. | |
POCP | 2.52 × 10−12 | 8.21 × 10−11 | kg Ethene eq. | |
ADP elements | 1.82 × 10−11 | 2.06 × 10−11 | kg Sb eq. | |
ADP fossil | 1.14 × 10−9 | 1.07 × 10−9 | MJ | |
FAETP | 1.16 × 10−10 | 1.59 × 10−10 | kg DCB eq. | |
HTP | 6.61 × 10−10 | 1.07 × 10−9 | kg DCB eq. | |
MAETP | 4.92 × 10−9 | 5.31 × 10−9 | kg DCB eq. | |
TETP | 2.29 × 10−11 | 2.18 × 10−11 | kg DCB eq. |
Target Layer | Standard Layer | Index Layer | Employee | Herdsmen | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The basic conditions needed to maintain a high-quality life | Economic living standard | Per capita monthly net income (yuan) | 4500 | 1842 | Questionnaire |
Energy consumption | Per capita energy consumption (structure) | Coal: 516 kg Electricity:812 KWh | Coal: 2991 kg Electricity:1054 kWh | Questionnaire | |
Housing conditions | Per capita energy consumption (structure) | 29 m2 | 37.8 m2 | Questionnaire | |
Health | Vegetable satisfaction | Vegetable satisfaction | Quite satisfied | general | Questionnaire |
Meat satisfaction | Meat satisfaction | Quite satisfied | general | Questionnaire | |
Physical health satisfaction | Physical health satisfaction | Quite satisfied | Quite satisfied | Questionnaire | |
Medical insurance | The proportion of the number of people participating in medical insurance in the total number | 54% | 100% | Relevant personnel of the company/Questionnaire | |
Proportion of purchasing “five insurances and one housing fund” | The proportion of the number of people participating in the five social insurances and one housing fund to the total number | 58% | 10% | Relevant personnel of the company/Questionnaire | |
Security | Ecological safety satisfaction | Ecological safety satisfaction | Relatively safe | Relatively safe | Questionnaire |
work safety | Number of work-related injuries | 2 | None | Company management | |
Good social relations | Education level | Percentage of people with high school degree or above in total | 16% | 3.3% | Questionnaire |
Family burden | Total number of family dependents | 3 | 3 | Questionnaire | |
Family status | Family status satisfaction | Quite satisfied | Quite satisfied | Questionnaire |
Employees Well-Being | Herdsmen Well-Being | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Target Layer | Standard Layer | Normalized Value | Weights | Single Score | Total Score | Normalized Value | Weights | Single Score | Total Score |
The basic conditions needed to maintain a high-quality life | Economic living standard | 0.840 | 0.295 | 0.248 | 0.264 | 0.537 | 0.343 | 0.184 | 0.258 |
Energy consumption | 0.185 | 0.064 | 0.012 | 0.615 | 0.095 | 0.058 | |||
Housing conditions | 0.052 | 0.090 | 0.005 | 0.154 | 0.104 | 0.016 | |||
Health | Vegetable satisfaction | 0.490 | 0.029 | 0.014 | 0.108 | 0.523 | 0.030 | 0.016 | 0.125 |
Meat satisfaction | 0.490 | 0.025 | 0.012 | 0.523 | 0.027 | 0.014 | |||
Physical health satisfaction | 0.530 | 0.097 | 0.052 | 0.719 | 0.083 | 0.060 | |||
Medical insurance | 0.460 | 0.038 | 0.017 | 1.000 | 0.033 | 0.033 | |||
Proportion of purchasing “five insurances and one housing fund” | 0.460 | 0.027 | 0.012 | 0.091 | 0.027 | 0.002 | |||
Security | Ecological safety satisfaction | 0.607 | 0.086 | 0.052 | 0.052 | 0.573 | 0.086 | 0.049 | 0.049 |
work safety | 0.010 | 0.076 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.064 | 0 | |||
Good social relations | Education level | 0.607 | 0.075 | 0.046 | 0.103 | 0.297 | 0.022 | 0.006 | 0.061 |
Family burden | 0.520 | 0.032 | 0.017 | 0.456 | 0.033 | 0.015 | |||
Family status | 0.610 | 0.067 | 0.041 | 0.813 | 0.049 | 0.040 | |||
Overall Human Well-Being Score | 0.527 | 0.494 |
Type | Feature | Category | Frequency | Percentage/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
Socio-economic characteristics of employees | monthly income | <1000 yuan | 0 | 0% |
1000–3000 yuan | 8 | 16% | ||
3000–6000 yuan | 42 | 84% | ||
>6000 yuan | 0 | 0% | ||
Is there a “five social insurance and one housing fund” | yes | 29 | 58% | |
no | 21 | 42% | ||
How many people in the family | ≤3 people | 19 | 38% | |
4–5 people | 27 | 54% | ||
≥6 people | 4 | 8% | ||
education level | primary school | 0 | 0% | |
junior high school | 11 | 22% | ||
High school or technical secondary school | 17 | 34% | ||
Bachelor or college | 22 | 44% | ||
Postgraduate | 0 | 0% | ||
Socio-economic characteristics of herders | monthly income | <1000 yuan | 3 | 10% |
1000–3000 yuan | 9 | 30% | ||
3000–6000 yuan | 13 | 43% | ||
>6000 yuan | 5 | 17% | ||
Is there a “five social insurance and one housing fund” | yes | 3 | 10% | |
no | 27 | 90% | ||
How many people in the family | ≤3 people | 11 | 37% | |
4–5 people | 19 | 63% | ||
≥6 people | 2 | 7% | ||
education level | primary school | 14 | 47% | |
junior high school | 17 | 57% | ||
High school or technical secondary school | 1 | 3% | ||
Bachelor or college | 0 | 0% | ||
Postgraduate | 0 | 0% |
Per Capita Income–Environment Ratio | S1 | S2 | Units |
---|---|---|---|
IAP | 3.18 × 1013 | 4.25 × 1013 | CNY/kg SO2-Equiv. |
IGWP | 1.79 × 1013 | 2.30 × 1013 | CNY/kg CO2-Equiv. |
IPOCP | 1.79 × 1015 | 5.48 × 1013 | CNY/kg R11-Equiv. |
IODP | 1.00 × 1023 | 7.65 × 1022 | CNY/kg Ethene-Equiv. |
IEP | 1.54 × 1014 | 2.36 × 1014 | CNY/kg R11-Equiv. |
IFAETP | 3.87 × 1013 | 2.83 × 1013 | CNY/kg P-Equiv. |
IHTP | 6.80 × 1012 | 4.22 × 1012 | CNY/kg DCB-Equiv. |
IMAETP | 9.14 × 1011 | 8.47 × 1011 | CNY/kg DCB-Equiv. |
ITETP | 1.97 × 1014 | 2.07 × 1014 | CNY/kg DCB-Equiv. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, Y.; Dong, X.; Wang, X.-C.; Liu, M.; Zhang, P.; Liu, R.; Huang, J.; Dong, S. Study on the Relationship between Low-Carbon Circular Farming and Animal Husbandry Models and Human Well-Being: A Case Study of Yongchang County, Gansu Province. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8230. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148230
Zhang Y, Dong X, Wang X-C, Liu M, Zhang P, Liu R, Huang J, Dong S. Study on the Relationship between Low-Carbon Circular Farming and Animal Husbandry Models and Human Well-Being: A Case Study of Yongchang County, Gansu Province. Sustainability. 2022; 14(14):8230. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148230
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Ying, Xiaobin Dong, Xue-Chao Wang, Mengxue Liu, Peng Zhang, Ranran Liu, Jiuming Huang, and Shuheng Dong. 2022. "Study on the Relationship between Low-Carbon Circular Farming and Animal Husbandry Models and Human Well-Being: A Case Study of Yongchang County, Gansu Province" Sustainability 14, no. 14: 8230. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148230