Next Article in Journal
How Multicriteria Environmental Assessment Alters Sustainability Rankings: Case Study of Hempcrete and Prefabricated Walls
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding Value Propositions and Perceptions of Sharing Economy Platforms Between South Korea and the United States: A Content Analysis and Topic Modeling Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17157030
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Emergy, Environmental and Economic Sustainability of the Mango Orchard Production System in Hainan, China

by
Yali Lei
1,
Xiaohui Zhou
2 and
Hanting Cheng
2,*
1
Department of Electronic Engineering, Hainan College of Software Technology, Qionghai 571400, China
2
Environmental and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Haikou 571101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 7030; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157030
Submission received: 15 June 2025 / Revised: 18 July 2025 / Accepted: 31 July 2025 / Published: 2 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Mangoes are an important part of Hainan’s tropical characteristic agriculture. In response to the requirements of building an ecological civilization pilot demonstration zone in Hainan, China, green and sustainable development will be the future development trend of the mango planting system. However, the economic benefits and environmental impact during its planting and management process remain unclear. This paper combines emergy, life cycle assessment (LCA), and economic analysis to compare the system sustainability, environmental impact, and economic benefits of the traditional mango cultivation system (TM) in Dongfang City, Hainan Province, and the early-maturing mango cultivation system (EM) in Sanya City. The emergy evaluation results show that the total emergy input of EM (1.37 × 1016 sej ha−1) was higher than that of TM (1.32 × 1016 sej ha−1). From the perspective of the emergy index, compared with TM, EM exerted less pressure on the local environment and has better stability and sustainability. This was due to the higher input of renewable resources in EM. The LCA results showed that based on mass as the functional unit, the potential environmental impact of the EM is relatively high, and its total environmental impact index was 18.67–33.19% higher than that of the TM. Fertilizer input and On-Farm emissions were the main factors causing environmental consequences. Choosing alternative fertilizers that have a smaller impact on the environment may effectively reduce the environmental impact of the system. The economic analysis results showed that due to the higher selling price of early-maturing mango, the total profit and cost–benefit ratio of the EM have increased by 55.84% and 36.87%, respectively, compared with the TM. These results indicated that EM in Sanya City can enhance environmental sustainability and boost producers’ annual income, but attention should be paid to the negative environmental impact of excessive fertilizer input. These findings offer insights into optimizing agricultural inputs for Hainan mango production to mitigate multiple environmental impacts while enhancing economic benefits, aiming to provide theoretical support for promoting the sustainable development of the Hainan mango industry.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Mango (Mangifera indica L.), a world-renowned tropical fruit, stands as one of the most important economic crops globally, with China being the second-largest mango producer in the world [1]. In China, mangoes are predominantly cultivated in the southern and southwestern provinces [2]. Hainan is one of the major mango-producing regions in China, boasting a mango cultivation area of 54,700 ha, which accounts for 21% of the country’s total, and generating an annual total output value of CNY 4.093 billion [3]. Benefiting from its tropical climate, characterized by mild temperatures, abundant rainfall, and fertile soil, Hainan provides an ideal environment for mango cultivation [4]. Mangoes are the most extensively cultivated and dominant tropical fruit in Hainan Province, serving as a major source of income for farmers [5]. Due to its unique climatic advantages, Hainan mangoes are known for their early market availability, high quality, and low price, and are deeply loved by the public. Early market entry can bring higher economic benefits. Still, it will also require more investment in field management (such as fertilizers and pesticides), which may have a certain impact on the environment.
Nowadays, agriculture is facing multiple transformations, with the processes of food production and consumption exerting a series of negative environmental impacts and posing significant potential threats to human survival [6]. The increased use of agrochemicals does not necessarily lead to higher yields but can amplify environmental impacts [7]. Compared to cereal and vegetable crops, fruit production, as a perennial crop, relies more heavily on fertilizers and pesticides [8,9,10]. Excessive consumption of these chemical inputs poses a threat to the environmental sustainability of agricultural systems [11]. Over the past decade, fresh fruit producers, retailers, and consumers worldwide have shown heightened environmental awareness [12]. There is growing concern about how and to what extent fruit production affects the environment, as well as methods to mitigate these environmental impacts [13,14,15,16]. Research indicates that the quantity and type of agrochemicals used, as well as orchard yields, are the three primary factors influencing the environmental variability of orchards [7]. Given the differences in inputs and yields across various regional cultivation systems, there is a relative scarcity of research on relevant benefit evaluations. Therefore, studying and evaluating the operational efficiency and sustainability of mango orchard production systems in different regions of Hainan holds significant importance for further optimizing their production and promoting their adoption.
Numerous methods have been employed to analyze the environmental impacts of orchard systems, such as emergy evaluation [17], carbon footprint analysis [18], and life cycle assessment (LCA) [19,20,21]. Emergy evaluation was first proposed by Odum [22] and further developed in the 1990s. It considers all inputs, including natural renewable and non-renewable resources, purchased energy, and other services related to energy consumption, to evaluate the sustainability of agroecosystems [23,24]. It serves as a comprehensive accounting method for both environmental and economic systems [25]. LCA is an effective environmental analysis tool widely used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of products and processes [26,27,28]. Based on emergy evaluation results, the efficiency of economic resource consumption in agricultural production systems can be optimized, while LCA results can guide the reduction of pollutant emissions [29]. In addition, economic indicators can assess the economic feasibility of the system and are of the greatest concern to producers during the production process. They are a key factor that cannot be ignored. The combination of emergy evaluation, LCA, and economic analysis can complement the shortcomings of each individual method [30,31,32]. Chen et al. [33] utilized LCA, emergy, and economic analysis to assess three typical rice rotation systems in Quanjiao County, China. They found that the rice-crayfish rotation system resulted in higher environmental pressure and lower sustainability but yielded higher income. Xu et al. [31], by integrating economic analysis, LCA, and emergy evaluation, discovered that the integrated corn–pig system was more profitable, had lower potential environmental impacts, and exhibited better sustainability compared to the separate corn and pig systems.
In recent years, many scholars have primarily focused their research on the environmental impacts of mango production processes in single regions. For instance, Dias et al. [34] found in their study on the environmental and economic performance of mango cropping systems in Brazil that intercropping cover crops between mango tree rows could effectively enhance the overall performance of mango production. Wang et al. [35] found that by comparing the impacts of different land use patterns on CO2 fluxes, they discovered that the conversion of degraded grasslands into mango orchards led to an increase in CO2 emissions. Cheng et al. [17] employed emergy analysis to evaluate two orchard systems, and their results indicated that, compared to monoculture mango orchards, intercropped orchards exhibited lower environmental loading ratios, higher emergy yield ratios, and economic output/input ratios, thus demonstrating greater sustainability. Nickia [36] conducted a life cycle assessment to study the environmental pressures associated with mango production in Taiwan and found that the primary environmental burden of mango production stemmed from fertilizer production, particularly nitrogen fertilizers.
The aforementioned studies have all focused solely on single regions, without considering the environmental impacts of mango production processes across different regions or varying maturity periods. Environmental impacts can vary depending on the region, crop, and system [37]. Therefore, to fill the knowledge gap in research on the emergy and potential environmental impacts of mango cultivation systems across different regions, this study focuses on the traditional mango cultivation system (TM) in Dongfang City and the early-maturing mango cultivation system (EM) in Sanya City, Hainan Province. This paper applies emergy evaluation, LCA, and economic analysis to comprehensively quantify and evaluate the development of different mango cultivation systems, aiming to fill the research void and provide reference bases and methodological insights for the future healthy, stable development and promotion of these cultivation systems.

2. Methods

2.1. Case Study Description

Dongfang City is located in the southwest of Hainan Province, within the geographical coordinates of 18°43′–19°18′ N and 108°36′–109°07′ E (Figure 1). It has a tropical oceanic monsoon climate, characterized by abundant sunshine. The annual average temperature ranges from 23 °C to 25.2 °C. The highest monthly average temperatures occur in June and July, with 28.5 °C in mountainous areas and 29.5 °C in coastal regions. The lowest monthly average temperatures are in January and February, at 16.5 °C in mountainous areas and 18.5 °C in coastal areas. The city enjoys 2543.5 h of sunshine annually and an average annual rainfall of approximately 1100 mm. Due to the ocean’s moderating effect on temperatures, Dongfang’s climate is “dry yet not arid,” exhibiting a distinct “dry and cool” characteristic.
Sanya City is situated at the southernmost tip of Hainan Island, within the coordinates of 18°09′–18°37′ N and 108°56′–109°48′ E (Figure 1). It borders Lingshui County to the east, Baoting County to the north, Ledong County to the west, and the South China Sea to the south. Sanya has a tropical oceanic monsoon climate, with an annual average temperature of 25.5 °C. The highest average temperature occurs in July, at 28.5 °C, while the lowest is in January, at 20.9 °C. The city receives 2563 h of sunshine annually and has an average annual rainfall of 1279 mm, making it suitable for mango cultivation. The most widespread distribution of mangoes in Sanya is on hillside yellow earth soils, primarily at altitudes ranging from 100 to 500 m. Mangoes are a characteristic agricultural product of Sanya. By 2024, the city’s mango planting area will reach 25,000 hectares, with an output of 469,000 tons, firmly ranking first in Hainan [38]. It is an important part of Hainan’s tropical characteristics and efficient agriculture.
The TM in Dongfang City: Mangoes in this system typically hit the market from April to May each year. The EM in Sanya City: As the southernmost city in China, Sanya benefits from higher temperatures. Through flowering period regulation, mango trees in this system can achieve earlier fruiting, with mangoes typically available from December to April of the following year, thus fetching higher economic returns. In both mango cultivation systems, fruit trees are directly planted on slopes. The density of mango seedlings ranges from 670 to 820 ha, and the trees only bear fruit after four years of growth.

2.2. Raw Data Sources

This study collected meteorological data, input, and output data from two mango cultivation systems between 2023 and 2024. Meteorological data (including solar energy, wind energy, rainwater chemical energy, etc.) for the study areas were sourced from the China National Meteorological Administration. The original farm data for the TM and the EM were obtained from the production records of Guangba Farm in Dongfang City and Lantian Farm in Sanya City, respectively. The accuracy of the data was verified through on-site observations. The raw data encompassed both input and output materials. The primary inputs included manure, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, labor, machinery, and paper bags. The main output is the yield of mangoes per ha.

2.3. Emergy Evaluation

Based on the standard emergy theory proposed by Odum [22], the energy flow diagrams of different mango production systems are shown in Figure 2. To compare the energy value flow among different mango cultivation systems, this paper uses the global energy value baseline of 12.0 × 1024 sej yr−1 [39]. Different energy sources are classified into three types: (1) renewable resources (R), such as sun, wind, and rain; (2) non-renewable natural resources (N0), such as soil organic matter reduction; (3) purchased resources (P), such as labor, manure, seeds, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, feed, machinery, and paper bags. According to the renewable factor (RNF), purchased resources (P) can be divided into purchased renewable resources and purchased non-renewable resources (FR and FN). The RNF of labor, manure, and seeds were 10%, 80%, and 25%, respectively [30,40]. FN includes labor (90%), chemical fertilizers, pesticides, seeds (75%), machinery, and paper bags. Table 1 shows various input and output flows based on the physical units of two mango cultivation systems.
Furthermore, based on the analysis of energy input-output, some emergy indicators are applied to evaluate the environmental efficiency and sustainability of the two mango cultivation systems. Namely, unit emergy value (UEV), emergy renewability (%R), emergy yield ratio (EYR), emergy investment ratio (EIR), emergy exchange ratio (EER), environmental loading ratio (ELR), environmental sustainability index (ESI), environmental index of sustainable development (EISD), and emergy index of agricultural product safety (EIPS). The calculation and formula of the energy value index are described in detail in Table 2.

2.4. LCA Methodology

LCA is a systematic approach used to evaluate the environmental impact of a product, process, or service throughout its entire life cycle. LCA mainly consists of four steps according to the Standard ISO14040 [42]: (1) goal and scope definition; (2) inventory analysis; (3) impact assessment; and (4) result interpretation.

2.4.1. Goal and Scope Definition

The primary objective of this LCA is to evaluate the environmental impacts of mango cultivation in Hainan and identify the most influential factors within the system. Two functional units (FUs) were employed to compare the material inputs and outputs in each mango cultivation system, following the recommendations of Cerutti et al. [6]. The mass-based FU (1 kg of mango per year) was calculated for the cumulated yield. The land-based FU (1 ha of land per year) was used to consider land use intensity. The scope of the study spans from “cradle to gate,” and one-year production data were collected. Although the nursery and non-commercial (planting and growth) phases are relatively significant in terms of environmental impacts, they are not included in this study due to a lack of available data. The system boundary is illustrated in Figure 3.

2.4.2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

During the inventory analysis phase, all types of resources consumed and emissions generated throughout the entire production process are gathered. Inputs such as manure, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and paper bags are primarily sourced from the Ecoinvent v3.5 database. Both Off-Farm and On-Farm emissions associated with the production of agricultural inputs are calculated. Inputs such as manures, chemical fertilizers, seeds, and pesticides are primarily sourced from the Ecoinvent v3.5 database. The On-Farm emissions refer to those resulting directly from the use of inputs in agricultural production, including fertilizer emissions to the air and water and pesticide emissions to the air, water, and soil. They are all calculated by multiplying the relevant input amounts by their equivalent coefficients. As shown in Table S1. In this study, the ReCiPe Midpoint method is selected for environmental impact assessment [43].

2.4.3. Environmental Impact Assessment (LCIA)

Taking into account the characteristics of the system under investigation, seven environmental impact categories are considered: climate change (CC), terrestrial acidification (TA), freshwater eutrophication (FEU), marine eutrophication (MEU), freshwater ecotoxicity (FEC), land use (LU), and water depletion (WD). The environmental inventory data are evaluated using SimaPro 9.0.

2.5. Economic Analysis

This study conducted an economic cost–benefit analysis to clarify the economic benefits of each system. This study selects four economic parameters, namely total cost, total revenue, profit, and cost–benefit ratio, to analyze the economic characteristics of two mango cultivation systems. These calculation formulas were given by Zhen et al. [44]. The prices of mangoes in the TE and the EM are 8 RMB kg−1 and 14 RMB kg−1, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Emergy Evaluation

3.1.1. Emergy Structure Analysis

Table 1 and Table S2 compare the emergy input structure of the TM in Dongfang City and the EM in Sanya City. The results showed that the total emergy input of the TM was 1.32 × 1016 sej ha−1, which was less than that of the EM (1.37 × 1016 sej ha−1) (Table S2). Among them, the purchased non-renewable inputs accounted for the largest proportion of the total emergy input, accounting for 84.48% and 82.94% of the TM and EM, respectively (Figure S1). The renewable environmental inputs of the EM were 16.31% higher than those of the TM. Among them, wind, a form of kinetic energy, was the one with the greatest difference in the input items of the two planting systems. The wind, kinetic energy of the EM, was reduced by 60.82% compared with the TM (Table 1). The non-renewable environmental inputs of the EM were higher, 14.29% higher than those of the TM. Compared with the TM, the purchased resources of the EM increased by 2.86%. Among them, the input of labor, manure, pesticides, and machinery per ha of the EM increased by 15.33–30.08%. Among all the input items, labor, phosphate fertilizer, and paper bag input were the main emergy inputs of the two mango cultivation systems (Figure S2). The labor accounts for 23.55% and 28.26% of the total emergy input in the TM and the EM, respectively. Phosphate fertilizer accounted for 30.38% and 29.04% of the total emergy input of the TM and the EM, respectively. Paper bags accounted for 20.65% and 16.85% of the total emergy input in the TM and the EM, respectively.

3.1.2. Emergy Index

The comparison of emergy indices across different systems reflects the application of management practices and diverse production methods within the studied ecosystems [41]. To comprehensively evaluate the sustainability of TM and EM, the emergy indices of the two systems were calculated (Table 3). The UEV of the EM increased by 23.07% compared to the TM. This index suggests that the EM consumes more emergy and exhibits lower emergy efficiency. The %R index of the EM was 12.74% higher than that of the TM, indicating that the EM had greater sustainability potential. The EYR measures a process’s ability to develop locally available resources through the investment of external resources [45]. A higher EYR implies a greater contribution of the system to the economy and society [46]. The EYR of the EM was 1.62% higher than that of the TM, indicating that the former can more reasonably utilize local resources through the investment of external resources. The EIR of the EM was 6.162, which was lower than that of the TM (6.740), suggesting that the EM had a higher degree of dependence on environmental resources. Both the TM and EM have EER greater than 1, indicating that both systems generate additional benefits from the market, and the EM has achieved higher profits. The ELR for the TM and EM were 9.238 and 8.519, respectively, indicating that the studied cultivation systems exert pressure on the local environment, with the TM imposing a greater environmental burden. The ESI value of the EM was 0.136, which was higher than that of the TM (0.124), suggesting that the EM had better sustainability. The EISD indicated that the EM exhibits better stability and sustainability compared to the TM. The EIPS value of the EM was 0.528, which was higher than that of the TM (0.511), indicating that the TM had lower crop safety compared to the EM.

3.2. LCA

3.2.1. Life Cycle Inventory Results

The LCA results showed that for land-based FU, there was not much difference in the results between the TM and the EM. Compared with the TM, the results of CC, TA, FEU, MEU, FEC, LU, and WD in the EM increased by 2.04%, 5.99%, 2.75%, 5.2%, 1.02%, 13.5%, and 1.9%, respectively (Table 4). For mass-based FU, compared with the TM, the results of CC, TA, FEU, MEU, FEC, LU, and WD of the EM increased by 19.79%, 24.54%, 20.77%, 23.71%, 18.67%, 33.19%, and 19.66%, respectively.

3.2.2. Environmental Impact Assessment Results

Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively, show the sources and components of each potential environmental impact in the TM and the EM. The seven impact categories in the two mango cultivation systems have similar results. N was the main factor causing the CC influence in the two systems, accounting for 53.6% and 51.3% of the CC influence in the TM and EM, respectively. The impacts of TA, FEU, and MEU were mainly caused by emissions within the farm. FEC was mainly affected by the use of P2O5, accounting for 50.8% and 50.1% of the effects of the TM and the EM on FEC, respectively. Manure and N were the main contributors to LU and WD, respectively, accounting for 87.9–89.4% and 42.1–43.9% of the influence of LU and WD, respectively.

3.3. Economic Analysis

Table 5 shows the economic indicators of different mango cultivation systems. The economic input of the EM was higher than that of the TM. Among them, the input cost of manure was the highest, accounting for 43.14% and 43.57% of the total cost of the TM and the EM, respectively (Figure S3). Secondly, there was the labor input, accounting for 29.86% and 32.79% of the total costs of the TM and the EM, respectively. Furthermore, the cost of chemical fertilizers accounted for 22.42% and 19.49% of the total costs of the TM and the EM, respectively. Compared with the TM, the EM had increased the income per ha by 48.75%. This was because out-of-season mangoes from EM were sold at a higher price, up to 75%. The economic profit per ha of the EM was 55.84% higher than that of the TM. In addition, the cost–benefit ratio of the EM was higher, being 36.87% higher than that of the TM.

4. Discussion

4.1. Sustainability Analysis of Mango Cultivation Systems

The emergy evaluation results of this study indicated that the TM had a higher emergy efficiency than the EM. The efficiency of the system is not only affected by the conversion rate between emergy input and output but also by its ability to utilize renewable resources [46]. A higher UEV indicates lower production efficiency [47]. The results of this study showed that the UEV value of the EM was 18.4% higher than that of the TM. This indicates that the EM consumes more emergy and has a lower emergy efficiency. The EER of the TM and the EM was 8.845 and 12.627, respectively, which was much higher than that of the mango cultivation system in the karst area of Guizhou (1.79) [17]. This was attributed to the higher yield and economic value of mango cultivation in Hainan. Compared with the TM, the ELR of the EM decreased by 12.55%, while the EYR and ESI increased by 1.59% and 12.56%, respectively. These results indicate that, compared with the TM, the EM exerted less environmental pressure and had higher system sustainability.
The diversity of spatial, cultural, and temporal conditions of agricultural practice has extensive practical impacts on the environment [48,49]. We compared the LCA of TM and EM to assess the environmental impact of mango cultivation in different regions with different maturity periods. The LCA results showed that, whether land-based FU or mass-based FU, the TM exhibited better results than the EM in all influence categories. This was because the TM required fewer inputs. The differences in economic and agricultural development levels can lead to disparities in agricultural input and output [50]. Due to early-maturing mangoes being more expensive, in the EM, farmers were willing to invest more in fertilizers. Overall planning, rational allocation of resources, and change of management mode can better achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction [50]. Based on mass FU, the CC effects of the TM and the EM were 0.15 kg CO2 eq and 0.17 kg CO2 eq, respectively. This is similar to the values obtained previously regarding the impact on mango cultivation [51]. For instance, Müller Carneiro et al. [12] conducted a study on the environmental impact of packaged mangoes produced in Vale do São Francisco and found that the average greenhouse gas emissions from the production of 1 kg of mangoes were 0.13 kg CO2 eq.

4.2. The Key Factors Influencing Environmental Consequences

In this study, the FN had the highest share among all emergy inputs, accounting for 84.48% and 82.61% of the total emergy inputs of the TM and the EM, respectively. This is consistent with the research results of Jafari et al. [52] on the jujube and pistachio production systems in Iran. It indicated that the systems of the two studies were strongly influenced by the inputs purchased from the economy. The composition of the emergy input purchased by the TM and the EM was largely similar. Among them, labor and P2O5 were the main factors affecting the mango planting system, accounting for 23.55–28.14% and 28.93–30.38% of the total emergy of the mango planting system, respectively. Compared with the TM, the input of labor, manure, pesticides, and machinery per ha in the EM increased by 15.33–30.08%. Therefore, the total emergy input of the EM was higher. However, compared with the TM, the EM had a higher input of natural environmental resources. The sustainability of the system is closely related to the utilization rate of renewable inputs; systems that utilize more renewable resources have better sustainable development capabilities [53], which is the reason for the better EME results of the EM.
In fruit production in China, the use of fertilizers and On-Farm emissions were the biggest causes of potential environmental impacts [16,50,54,55]. In our study, fertilizer input and the resulting emissions have been proven to be the main factors of potential environmental impact. Excessive application of manure can lead to a gradual increase in the risk of soil ecological toxicity. Therefore, fertilizer use should not be increased blindly during the planting process. Soil testing and the application of formula fertilization technology need to be strengthened [56]. However, some local farmers usually only care about short-term economic benefits. Since the market price of early-ripening mangoes is much higher than that of traditional mangoes, EM uses more fertilizers and pesticides than TM to ensure product quality, resulting in increased environmental risks. For land-based FU, the results of the environmental impact of the two systems were similar. However, for mass-based FU, due to the higher yield of EM, the environmental impact of the EM was reduced by 18.67–33.19% compared with the TM. From the perspective of clean production, increasing yield per unit area without increasing the number of inputs used is an important way to reduce environmental impact [57]. Therefore, in order to make the EM system a more sustainable model, some necessary improvements need to be made.

4.3. The Economic Consequences of the Mango Cultivation System

The cost input of the EM had increased by 13.86% compared with the TM. This was attributed to the high labor costs of the EM system, which account for 43.57% of the total cost. This is consistent with previous studies, which show that labor accounts for the largest share of costs in production systems [44,58]. In addition, the mango yield of the EM was 15% lower than that of the TM. The economic income is 48.75% higher than that of the TM. This is because the early-ripening mango industry has targeted the consumer market during the Chinese Spring Festival, when the price of mangoes was 75% higher than that of traditional mangoes. Thus, the EM also gains higher profits. This indicated that the EM can produce high-quality products and bring them to market earlier and obtain higher profits. In our study, compared with TM, EM incurred a smaller increase in costs but generated a larger increase in profits. Therefore, EM had a higher cost-effectiveness ratio. This indicated that high-return planting models can offset farmers’ short-term costs, increase profits, and reduce risks. These results indicate that EM can enhance the production efficiency of major agricultural products in Hainan Province and boost farmers’ enthusiasm for growing mangoes.

5. Conclusions

This paper comprehensively assesses the environmental performance and economic benefits of TM and EM by combining emergy evaluation, LCA, and economic analysis. The results showed that, compared with the TM, the EM demonstrated higher environmental sustainability and economic profits, which can increase the economic income of local farmers. Meanwhile, due to the increased use of fertilizers, the On-Farm emissions were relatively high, and the EM had increased the potential environmental impact. In the two mango cultivation systems, fertilizers were the main contributors to emergy and environmental potential. The use of fertilizers with less environmental impact (such as bio-fertilizers) to replace chemical fertilizers is the optimization direction for future mango planting systems, especially for early-maturing mango planting systems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17157030/s1: Figure S1: Total emergy input of mango orchard production system in different systems; Figure S2: Emergy input structure of mango orchard production system in different system; Figure S3: Total economic input structure of mango orchard production system in different systems; Table S1: On-Farm emissions related to manure and chemical fertilizer consumption in the agricultural production system; Table S2: Emergy flow structure of two mango planting systems (emergy unit: sej·ha−1).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing, Y.L.; methodology, software, formal analysis, and writing—original draft, X.Z.; conceptualization, formal analysis, project administration, H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Hainan Province Science and Technology Special Fund (ZDYF2023XDNY065; ZDYF2025XDNY124; ZDYF2024SHFZ043), Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund for the Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences (No. 1630042022003).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Li, Q.; Bu, J.; Shu, J.; Yu, Z.; Tang, L.; Huang, S.; Guo, T.; Mo, J.; Luo, S.; Solangi, G.S.; et al. Colletotrichum species associated with mango in southern China. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mo, J.; Zhao, G.; Li, Q.; Solangi, G.S.; Tang, L.; Guo, T.; Huang, S.; Hsiang, T. Identification and Characterization of Colletotrichum Species Associated with Mango Anthracnose in Guangxi, China. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 1283–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ma, C.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, C.; Duan, Y. Analysis of multiple pesticide residues in mango of Hainan Province. Chin. J. Pestic. Sci. 2021, 23, 552–560. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhu, J. Current situation, problems and development suggestions of Hainan mango industry. Agric. Eng. Technol. 2019, 39, 20–21. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Guo, Z.; Sun, J.; Huang, X.; Zhong, H.; Zhu, Q. Variation characteristics of climate suitability of mango flowering period in changjiang. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2019, 35, 95–100. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  6. Cerutti, A.K.; Beccaro, G.L.; Bruun, S.; Bosco, S.; Donno, D.; Notarnicola, B.; Bounous, G. Life cycle assessment application in the fruit sector: State of the art and recommendations for environmental declarations of fruit products. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 73, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vásquez-Ibarra, L.; Iriarte, A.; Rebolledo-Leiva, R.; Vásquez, M.; Angulo-Meza, L.; González-Araya, M.C. Considering the influence of the variability in management practices on the environmental impacts of fruit production: A case study on raspberry production in Chile. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martin-Gorriz, B.; Gallego-Elvira, B.; Martínez-Alvarez, V.; Maestre-Valero, J.F. Life cycle assessment of fruit and vegetable production in the Region of Murcia (south-east Spain) and evaluation of impact mitigation practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Han, J.; Jin, X.; Huang, S.; Zhu, X.; Liu, J.; Chen, J.; Zhang, A.; Wang, X.; Tong, Y.; Hussain, Q.; et al. Carbon and nitrogen footprints of apple orchards in China’s Loess Plateau under different fertilization regimes. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 413, 137546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Longo, S.; Mistretta, M.; Guarino, F.; Cellura, M. Life Cycle Assessment of organic and conventional apple supply chains in the North of Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 654–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Amiri, Z.; Asgharipour, M.R.; Campbell, D.E.; Sabaghi, M.A. Comparison of the sustainability of mechanized and traditional rapeseed production systems using an emergy-based production function: A case study in Lorestan Province, Iran. J. Crop Prod. 2020, 258, 120891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Carneiro, J.M.; Dias, A.F.; Barros, V.d.S.; Giongo, V.; Matsuura, M.I.d.S.F.; de Figueirêdo, M.C.B. Carbon and water footprints of Brazilian mango produced in the semiarid region. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 24, 735–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vinyes, E.; Gasol, C.M.; Asin, L.; Alegre, S.; Muñoz, P. Life Cycle Assessment of multiyear peach production. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Goossens, Y.; Annaert, B.; De Tavernier, J.; Mathijs, E.; Keulemans, W.; Geeraerd, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) for apple orchard production systems including low and high productive years in conventional, integrated and organic farms. Agric. Syst. 2017, 153, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sales, H.; Figueiredo, F.; Vaz Patto, M.C.; Nunes, J. Assessing the environmental sustainability of Portuguese olive growing practices from a life cycle assessment perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 355, 131692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cabot, M.I.; Lado, J.; Sanjuán, N. Multi-season environmental life cycle assessment of lemons: A case study in south Uruguay. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 326, 116719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Cheng, H.; Hu, W.; Zhou, X.; Dong, R.; Liu, G.; Li, Q.; Zhang, X. Fruit Tree Legume Herb Intercropping Orchard System Is an Effective Method to Promote the Sustainability of Systems in a Karst Rocky Desertification Control Area. Forests 2022, 13, 1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pérez, R.; Laca, A.; Laca, A.; Díaz, M. Environmental behaviour of blueberry production at small-scale in Northern Spain and improvement opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 339, 130594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhu, Z.; Jia, Z.; Peng, L.; Chen, Q.; He, L.; Jiang, Y.; Ge, S. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic apple production systems in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gaspar, P.D.; Godina, R.; Barrau, R. Influence of Orchard Cultural Practices during the Productive Process of Cherries through Life Cycle Assessment. Processes 2021, 9, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, J.; Zhao, M.; Wan, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, X.; Shi, X. Environmental Assessment of Furrow vs. Drip Irrigated Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.) Production Systems in Loess Plateau (China). Agronomy 2021, 11, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Odum, H.T. Environmental Accounting-EMERGY and Environmental Decision Making; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  23. Brown, M.T.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy assessment of global renewable sources. Ecol. Model. 2016, 339, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, X.; Dadouma, A.; Chen, Y.; Sui, P.; Gao, W.; Jia, L. Sustainability evaluation of the large-scale pig farming system in North China: An emergy analysis based on life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 102, 144–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xu, Q.; Wang, X.; Xiao, B.; Hu, K. Rice-crab coculture to sustain cleaner food production in Liaohe River Basin, China: An economic and environmental assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hosseini-Fashami, F.; Motevali, A.; Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A.; Hashemi, S.J.; Chau, K.W. Energy-Life cycle assessment on applying solar technologies for greenhouse strawberry production. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2019, 116, 109411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhen, H.; Qiao, Y.; Ju, X.; Hashemi, F.; Knudsen, M.T. Organic conversion tea farms can have comparable economic benefits and less environmental impacts than conventional ones-A case study in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 877, 162698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cheng, H.; Zhou, X.; Yang, Y.; Xu, L.; Ding, Y.; Yan, T.; Li, Q. Environmental damages, cumulative exergy demand, and economic assessment of Panus giganteus farming with the application of solar technology. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 907, 168020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rugani, B.; Benetto, E. Improvements to Emergy Evaluations by Using Life Cycle Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 4701–4712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Asgharipour, M.R.; Amiri, Z.; Campbell, D.E. Evaluation of the sustainability of four greenhouse vegetable production ecosystems based on an analysis of emergy and social characteristics. Ecol. Model. 2020, 424, 109021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, Y.; Li, P.; Gao, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, S.; Li, Y.; Sui, P.; Wang, X.; Gao, W.; Chen, Y. Sustainability evaluation for a circular maize-pig system driven by indigenous microbes: A case study in Northeast China. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2022, 8, 2080591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhou, X.; Zheng, X.; Bu, L.; Yang, Y.; Xu, L.; Ding, Y.; Li, Q.; Cheng, H. Emergy, environmental impact, and economic assessment of rubber–edible mushroom–vegetable intercropping in Hainan, China. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2025, 231, 121172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, Y.; Liu, C.; Chen, J.; Hu, N.; Zhu, L. Evaluation on environmental consequences and sustainability of three rice-based rotation systems in Quanjiao, China by an integrated analysis of life cycle, emergy and economic assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dias, A.F.; Giongo, V.; Barros, V.d.S.; Carneiro, J.M.; de Figueirêdo, M.C.B. An agile approach for evaluating the environmental-economic performance of cropping systems at experimental stage: The case of Brazilian mango. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1588–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, Z.; Wubshet, T.T.; Chen, H.; Wu, L.; Yang, H.; Yang, J.; Goldberg, S.D.; Xu, J.; Gui, H. Effects of degraded grassland conversion to mango plantation on soil CO2 fluxes. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 167, 104045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nickia, G.M. The environmental pressures of eating a mango: A preliminary life cycle assessment of mango production in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the A&WMA’s 109th Annual Conference & Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 20–23 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  37. Robinson, B.; Winans, K.; Kendall, A.; Dlott, J.; Dlott, F. A life cycle assessment of Agaricus bisporus mushroom production in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 456–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Statistical Bureau of Hainan Province. Hainan Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2024.
  39. Brown, M.T.; Campbell, D.E.; De Vilbiss, C.; Ulgiati, S. The geobiosphere emergy baseline: A synthesis. Ecol. Model. 2016, 339, 92–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Asgharipour, M.R.; Shahgholi, H.; Campbell, D.E.; Khamari, I.; Ghadiri, A. Comparison of the sustainability of bean production systems based on emergy and economic analyses. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Amiri, Z.; Asgharipour, M.R.; Campbell, D.E.; Azizi, K.; Kakolvand, E.; Moghadam, E.H. Conservation agriculture, a selective model based on emergy analysis for sustainable production of shallot as a medicinal-industrial plant. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. ISO 14040; Environmental Managementd–Life Cycle Assessment–Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  43. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 22, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhen, H.; Gao, W.; Jia, L.; Qiao, Y.; Ju, X. Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of alternative greenhouse vegetable production farms in peri-urban Beijing, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nan, B.; Li, B.; Yang, Z.; Dai, X.; Fan, Y.; Fu, Q.; Hao, L.; Zhang, X. Sustainability of sown systems of cultivated grassland at the edge of the Junggar Desert Basin: An integrated evaluation of emergy and economics. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 122800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cui, J.; Yan, P.; Wang, X.; Yang, J.; Li, Z.; Yang, X.; Sui, P.; Chen, Y. Integrated assessment of economic and environmental consequences of shifting cropping system from wheat-maize to monocropped maize in the North China Plain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Houshyar, E.; Wu, X.F.; Chen, G.Q. Sustainability of wheat and maize production in the warm climate of southwestern Iran: An emergy analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2246–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bessou, C.; Basset-Mens, C.; Tran, T.; Benoist, A. LCA applied to perennial cropping systems: A review focused on the farm stage. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 340–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cerutti, A.K.; Bruun, S.; Donno, D.; Beccaro, G.L.; Bounous, G. Environmental sustainability of traditional foods: The case of ancient apple cultivars in Northern Italy assessed by multifunctional LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 52, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhao, C.; Gao, B.; Wang, L.; Huang, W.; Xu, S.; Cui, S. Spatial patterns of net greenhouse gas balance and intensity in Chinese orchard system. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 779, 146250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Basset-Mens, C.; Vannière, H.; Grasselly, D.; Heitz, H.; Braun, A.; Payen, S.; Koch, P.; Biard, Y. Environmental impacts of imported and locally grown fruits for the French market: A cradle-to-farm-gate LCA study. Fruits 2016, 71, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jafari, M.; Asgharipour, M.R.; Ramroudi, M.; Galavi, M.; Hadarbadi, G. Sustainability assessment of date and pistachio agricultural systems using energy, emergy and economic approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 642–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guo, Y.H.; Wang, H.; Zhang, W.; Chen, B.; Song, D. Sustainability evaluation of protected vegetables production in China based on emergy analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 388, 135928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alaphilippe, A.; Boissy, J.; Simon, S.; Godard, C. Environmental impact of intensive versus semi-extensive apple orchards: Use of a specific methodological framework for Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) in perennial crops. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mostashari-Rad, F.; Ghasemi-Mobtaker, H.; Taki, M.; Ghahderijani, M.; Kaab, A.; Chau, K.-W.; Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A. Exergoenvironmental damages assessment of horticultural crops using ReCiPe2016 and cumulative exergy demand frameworks. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cheng, J.; Wang, Q.; Li, D.; Yu, J. Comparative Analysis of Environmental and Economic Performance of Agricultural Cooperatives and Smallholder Farmers for Apple Production in China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Svanes, E.; Johnsen, F.M. Environmental life cycle assessment of production, processing, distribution and consumption of apples, sweet cherries and plums from conventional agriculture in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hesampour, R.; Taki, M.; Fathi, R.; Hassani, M.; Halog, A. Energy-economic-environmental cycle evaluation comparing two polyethylene and polycarbonate plastic greenhouses in cucumber production (from production to packaging and distribution). Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 828, 154232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 07030 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area in Hainan Province.
Figure 1. Location of the study area in Hainan Province.
Sustainability 17 07030 g001
Sustainability 17 07030 g002
Figure 2. System diagram of crop production systems.
Figure 2. System diagram of crop production systems.
Sustainability 17 07030 g002
Sustainability 17 07030 g003
Figure 3. System boundary of mango production.
Figure 3. System boundary of mango production.
Sustainability 17 07030 g003
Sustainability 17 07030 g004
Figure 4. Input contributions for each potential environmental impact category of traditional mango orchard production systems.
Figure 4. Input contributions for each potential environmental impact category of traditional mango orchard production systems.
Sustainability 17 07030 g004
Sustainability 17 07030 g005
Figure 5. Input contributions for each potential environmental impact category of early-maturing mango orchard production systems.
Figure 5. Input contributions for each potential environmental impact category of early-maturing mango orchard production systems.
Sustainability 17 07030 g005
Table 1. Emergy evaluation of two mango cropping systems.
Table 1. Emergy evaluation of two mango cropping systems.
Raw AmountsSolar Emergy (sej)
UnitRen. FactorEmergy Unit−1TMEMTMEM
Renewable environmental inputs (R)
Solar energyJ115.31 × 10135.30 × 10135.31 × 10135.30 × 1013
Wind, kinetic energyJ11.86 × 1033.15 × 10101.23 × 10105.86 × 10132.30 × 1013
Rain, chemicalJ12.25 × 1045.21 × 10106.06 × 10101.17 × 10151.36 × 1015
Non-renewable environmental inputs (N0)
Soil organic matter reductionJ09.36 × 1044.43 × 1095.06 × 1094.15 × 10144.74 × 1014
Purchased inputs (P)
Human laborJ0.13.80 × 1068.15 × 1081.02 × 1093.10 × 10153.87 × 1015
Manureg0.82.70 × 1061.50 × 1071.73 × 1074.05 × 10134.66 × 1013
SeedJ0.253.49 × 1046.09 × 1056.09 × 1052.13 × 10102.13 × 1010
Ng04.62 × 1092.14 × 1052.09 × 1059.88 × 10149.67 × 1014
P2O5g01.78 × 10102.25 × 1052.24 × 1054.00 × 10153.98 × 1015
K2Og02.69 × 1092.25 × 1052.24 × 1056.05 × 10146.03 × 1014
Pesticideg01.62 × 1096.15 × 1038.00 × 1039.96 × 10121.30 × 1013
Machineg07.50 × 1074.49 × 1015.84 × 1013.37 × 1094.38 × 109
Paper bag¥05.88 × 10124.62 × 1023.93 × 1022.72 × 10152.31 × 1015
Total output
MangoJ 5.45 × 10103.63 × 1010
Table 2. Expression of the emergy-based indices used to evaluate the different mango production systems.
Table 2. Expression of the emergy-based indices used to evaluate the different mango production systems.
Emergy IndicesFormulaImplication
Transformity (sej J−1)UEV = U/OutputIt is the ratio of the emergy required to make a product or service to the available energy
Emergy Renewability%R = (R + FR)/U × 100This indicator quantifies the reliance of each system on renewable energies.
Emergy Yield RatioEYR = U/(FN + FR)Indicates the ability of the system to use local resources
Emergy Investment RatioEIR = (FN + FR)/(R + N0)The ratio of externally purchased energy resources to all free environmental energy in the local system
Emergy Exchange RatioEER = U/YMMarkets exchange fair energy
Environmental Loading RatioELR = (FN + N0 + FR)/RThe environmental load caused by the production process
Environmental Sustainability IndexESI = (EYR/ELR)The greater the dependence of the system’s output on the environment, the stronger the sustainability of the system
Environmental Index of Sustainable DevelopmentEISD = EYR × EER/ELRConsider the sustainability of economic benefits and environmental pressures
Emergy Index of Agricultural Product SafetyEIPS = 1 − [C ÷ (FN + FR)]It assesses the impact of the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on product safety
U = R + N0 + FR + FN. YM = Market value of the product’s economic yield×Money transformity. C = the sum of herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer emergy. Emergy Indices reference sources [30,41].
Table 3. Emergy-based indices of the different mango production systems.
Table 3. Emergy-based indices of the different mango production systems.
TMEM
UEV2.42 ×1052.96 × 105
%R12.37%13.60%
EYR1.1481.162
EIR6.7406.162
EER8.84512.627
ELR9.2388.519
ESI0.1240.136
EISD1.0991.723
EIPS0.5110.528
Table 4. Environmental impacts of the orchard systems as expressed per kg of fresh mango and per ha year.
Table 4. Environmental impacts of the orchard systems as expressed per kg of fresh mango and per ha year.
Impact CategoriesUnitFU = 1 haFU = 1 kg
TMEMTMEM
CCkg CO2 eq2401.422450.330.150.17
TAkg SO2 eq112.7119.456.83 × 10−38.51 × 10−3
FEUkg P eq3.213.291.94 × 10−42.34 × 10−4
MEUkg N eq3.393.572.06 × 10−42.55 × 10−4
FECkg 1,4-DCB81.6782.514.95 × 10−35.87 × 10−3
LUm2a crop eq309.42351.191.87 × 10−22.50 × 10−2
WDm336.9837.682.24 × 10−32.68 × 10−3
Table 5. Economic indices of traditional mango and early-maturing mango systems.
Table 5. Economic indices of traditional mango and early-maturing mango systems.
FU = 1 ha (RMB ha−1)FU = 1 kg (RMB kg−1)
TMEMTMEM
Cost2.23 × 1042.54 × 1041.351.81
Income1.32 × 1051.96 × 1058.0014.00
Profit1.10 × 1051.71 × 1056.6512.19
Cost–benefit ratio4.926.744.926.74
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

Lei, Y.; Zhou, X.; Cheng, H. Assessment of Emergy, Environmental and Economic Sustainability of the Mango Orchard Production System in Hainan, China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157030

AMA Style

Lei Y, Zhou X, Cheng H. Assessment of Emergy, Environmental and Economic Sustainability of the Mango Orchard Production System in Hainan, China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):7030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157030

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lei, Yali, Xiaohui Zhou, and Hanting Cheng. 2025. "Assessment of Emergy, Environmental and Economic Sustainability of the Mango Orchard Production System in Hainan, China" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 7030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157030

APA Style

Lei, Y., Zhou, X., & Cheng, H. (2025). Assessment of Emergy, Environmental and Economic Sustainability of the Mango Orchard Production System in Hainan, China. Sustainability, 17(15), 7030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157030

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