Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of the Ecological Footprint from Tourism-Induced Livestock Aggregation in the Altai Tavan Bogd National Park in Mongolia
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Research Methodology and Data Collection
- Enteric methane emissions from ruminants were calculated as follows: goats—5 kg CH4/year (Tier 1), grazing cattle—76.26 kg CH4/year (Tier 1), and sheep—13.77 kg CH4/year (Tier 2).
- Methane emissions from manure management were calculated as: goats—0.17 kg CH4/year (Tier 1), grazing cattle—3 kg CH4/year (Tier 1), and sheep—0.19 kg CH4/year (Tier 1).
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from manure were estimated as: grazing goats and sheep—0.02 kg N2O/year, and grazing cattle—0.4 kg N2O/year.
- Methane emissions: horses—18 kg CH4/year, camels—46 kg CH4/year (regional average).
- Methane from manure: horses—1 kg CH4/year, camels—0.6 kg CH4/year (regional average).
- Nitrous oxide from manure: horses—0.1 kg N2O/year, camels—0.2 kg N2O/year (regional average).
4. Results
5. Discussion
- Based on the greenhouse gas emissions within the National Park, setting an upper limit for the number of livestock and implementing policies to reduce livestock numbers as much as possible by the local self-government organizations;
- The first step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to remove small livestock, such as sheep and goats, from within the park boundaries. This measure alone could reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 58%. Researchers suggest that reducing livestock numbers, particularly cattle and sheep, constitutes a key strategy for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions [68];
- The National Park Authority can assess both the tourism carrying capacity and the total livestock carrying capacity, and implement measures to ensure these limits are not exceeded. These provisions can be incorporated into the park’s management plan;
- Establishing grazing zones for livestock and ensuring that special areas are not accessed at all for grazing as much as possible by inserting this into the management plan of the National Park;
- Protecting the habitats of rare animals and plants and safeguarding the soil layer from livestock;
- Promoting environmentally sustainable tourism models that have minimal negative impact on the environment and providing herders with secondary income opportunities to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Such initiatives could be implemented in collaboration with the National Park Administration, local conservation authorities, and international donor organizations. Although many projects are currently underway in Mongolia to improve the conservation management of national parks, this particular park is not included in any of them;
- Organizing greenhouse gas emission inventories and studying climate change at the micro-region level;
- Assess the benefits of tourism to the local community and quantify the income generated by local residents. Measures to reduce livestock numbers can then be implemented in proportion to the income earned from tourism. Although such provisions are included in Mongolian law, the National Park Administration has not yet undertaken activities in this area;
- A key component of the National Park Management Plan should be the approach to stakeholder engagement and the framework for multi-stakeholder participation. The previous management plan was implemented solely by the Park Administration. Given that herder households in the vicinity of the National Park represent the largest stakeholder group, the plan should clearly define how these households will participate in park management. Their duties and responsibilities should be explicitly stated, enabling the monitoring of livestock numbers to ensure they remain within appropriate and sustainable limits.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| GHG | Greenhouse gas |
| LEAD | Livestock, Environment, and Development |
| FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization |
| CO2 | Carbon dioxide |
| CH4 | Methane |
| N2O | Nitrous oxide |
| EF | Emission factor |
| IPCC | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |
| EFt | Total enteric fermentation |
| Nt | Total manure management |
References
- Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. Report on Expenditure of Inbound Tourism of Mongolia; Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2012.
- Government of Mongolia. The Master Plan of Tourism Development in Mongolia: 1995–2005; Government of Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 1995; Resolution No. 167 dated 11 December 1995. Available online: https://legalinfo.mn/mn/detail?lawId=200886&showType= (accessed on 12 December 2024).
- Parliament of Mongolia. Concept of Sustainable Development of Mongolia-2030; Parliament of Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2016; Resolution No. 19 dated 11 February 2016. Available online: https://legalinfo.mn/mn/detail?lawId=207105&showType=1 (accessed on 16 December 2024).
- Parliament of Mongolia. Vision-2050 Long Term Development Policy of Mongolia; Parliament of Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2020; Resolution No. 52 dated 13 May 2020. Available online: https://legalinfo.mn/mn/detail/15406 (accessed on 17 December 2024).
- Japan International Cooperation Agency. The Master Plan on National Tourism Development in Mongolia; Japan International Cooperation Agency: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 1999; Available online: https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11512910_01.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2025).
- Garnett, T. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: Impacts and options for policy makers. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2009, 12, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsedev, B.E. Land Use and Nature Conservation in Mongolia. In The Physical Geography of Mongolia; Yembuu, B., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 195–211. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-61434-8_11 (accessed on 28 January 2025).
- Tugjamba, N.; Gantumur, A. Environmental Protection and Tourism: Tourism in the Protected Area in Mongolia. In Destination Management and Marketing; IGI Global: Hershey PA, USA, 2020; pp. 910–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, C.; Shinjo, H.; Hoshino, B.; Enkhjargal, E. Assessing Local Indigenous Knowledge and Information Sources on Biodiversity, Conservation and Protected Area Management at Khuvsgol Lake National Park, Mongolia. Land 2018, 7, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sietses, D.J.; Faupin, G.; de Boer, W.F.; de Jong, C.B.; Henkens, R.J.H.G.; Usukhjargal, D.; Batbaatar, T. Resource partitioning between large herbivores in Hustai National Park, Mongolia. Mamm. Biol. 2009, 74, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reading, R.P.; Bedunah, D.J.; Amgalanbaatar, S. Conserving Biodiversity on Mongolian Rangelands: Implications for Protected Area Development and Pastoral Uses. In USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2006; pp. 1–17. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265758791_Conserving_Biodiversity_on_Mongolian_Rangelands_Implications_for_Protected_Area_Development_and_Pastoral_Uses (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. PARKS–The International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation; International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 22.1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wurts, K.E. Mongolian National Parks: Competing Interests and Institutional Viability in a Still Emerging Protected Areas System. Ind. Stud. Proj. (ISP) Collection, 2013; 1702, in press. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/reader/232735150 (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- Namsrai, O.; Ochir, A.; Baast, O.; van Genderen, J.L.; Muhar, A.; Erdeni, S.; Wang, J.; Davaasuren, D.; Chonokhuu, S. Evaluating the management effectiveness of protected areas in Mongolia using the management effectiveness tracking tool. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 63, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdenebat, N.; Yang, Y. Tourism Management System in Mongolia: The Case of Gorkhi-Terelj National Park. Smart Cit. Reg. Dev. J. 2022, 6, 93–108. Available online: https://scrd.eu/index.php/scrd/article/view/139 (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- Bedunah, D.J.; Schmidt, S. Pastoralism and Protected Area Management in Mongolia′s Gobi Gurvansaikhan National Park. Dev. Chang. 2004, 35, 167–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lkhagvadorj, D.; Hauck, M.; Dulamsuren, C.; Tsogtbaatar, J. Pastoral nomadism in the forest-steppe of the Mongolian Altai under a changing economy and a warming climate. J. Arid. Environ. 2013, 88, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begzsuren, S.; Ellis, J.E.; Ojima, D.S.; Coughenour, M.B.; Chuluun, T. Livestock responses to droughts and severe winter weather in the Gobi Three Beauty National Park, Mongolia. J. Arid. Environ. 2004, 59, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yager, K.; Valdivia, C.; Slayback, D.; Jimenez, E.; Meneses, R.I.; Palabral, A.; Bracho, M.; Romero, D.; Hubbard, A.; Pacheco, P.; et al. Socio-ecological dimensions of Andean pastoral landscape change: Bridging traditional ecological knowledge and satellite image analysis in Sajama National Park, Bolivia. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 1353–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Government of Kenya. Inventory of GHG Emissions from Dairy Cattle in Kenya 1995–2017; Government of Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya, 2020.
- Nhamo, G.; Dube, K.; Chapungu, L.; Chikodzi, D. Quest for NetZero emissions in South African national parks: A tourism perspective. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phophe, P.A.; Masubelele, M.L. Carbon Footprint Assessment in Nature-Based Conservation Management Estates Using South African National Parks as a Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Small World Consulting Ltd. A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment and Target Scenario for the New Forest National Park; Lancaster Environment Centre: Lancaster, UK, 2022. Available online: https://newforestnpa.gov.uk/app/uploads/2022/12/New-Forest-NP-GHG-Assessment-Report-v5-FINAL-221117.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2025).
- Small World Consulting Ltd. A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment and Target Scenario for the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park; Lancaster Environment Centre: Lancaster, UK, 2023; Available online: https://www.lochlomond-trossachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Loch-Lomond-NP-GHG-Assessment-Report.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2025).
- Dadem, G.C.; Tchamba, N.M.; Tsi, E.A. Impacts of anthropogenic pressures on wildlife in the northern sector of the National Park of Mbam and Djerem, Adamaou Cameroon. Int. J. Biodiv. Cons. 2018, 10, 145–153. Available online: https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJBC/article-abstract/5DD646F56153?utm_source (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- Chimner, R.A.; Resh, S.C.; Hribljan, J.A.; Battaglia, M.; Bourgeau-Chavez, L.; Bowser, G.; Lilleskov, E.A. Mountain Wetland Soil Carbon Stocks of Huascaran National Park, Peru. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1048609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.; Liu, B.; Wang, G.; Zhang, T.; Yang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Huang, M.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, L. Grass-livestock balance based grassland ecological carrying capability and sustainable strategy in the Yellow River Source National Park, Tibet Plateau, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2021, 18, 2201–2211. [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girma, Z.; Chuyong, G.; Mamo, Y. Impact of Livestock Encroachments and Tree Removal on Populations of Mountain Nyala and Menelik’s Bushbuck in Arsi Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Int. J. Ecol. 2018, 2018, 5193460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Liu, S.; Xie, Q.; Ma, Z. Carbon Footprint of a Typical Crop–Livestock Dairy Farm in Northeast China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO Mongolia. Mongolia Improves Livestock Emissions Estimation with the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model; FAO Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2024; Available online: https://www.fao.org/in-action/scala/news/news/news-detail/mongolia-improves-livestock-emissions-estimation-with-the-global-livestock-environmental-assessment-model/en (accessed on 8 February 2025).
- Solomon, T.; Gupta, V.; Major Ncho, C. Balancing Livestock Environmental Footprints with Forestry-Based Solutions: A Review. Ecologies 2023, 4, 714–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Livestock’s Long Shadow; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006; Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2025).
- Mozammel Hoque, A.; Mondal, S.; Adusumilli, S. Chapter Four–Sustainable livestock production and food security. Emerg. Issues Clim. Smart Livest. Prod. 2020, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock–A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/5e54916e-a037-4b05-b04a-a46e87ffbe72 (accessed on 21 February 2025).
- Bhatt, A.; Abbassi, B. Review of environmental performance of sheep farming using life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanjo Jose, V.; Sejian, V.; Bagath, M.; Ratnakaran, A.P.; Lees, A.M.; Al-Hosni, Y.A.S.; Sullivan, M.; Bhatta, R.; Gaughan, J.B. Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emission from Livestock. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotz, A. Environmental Sustainability of Livestock Production. Meat Muscle Biol. 2020, 4, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Pradhan, P.; Wu, X.; Li, Z.; Liu, J.; Hubacek, K.; Chen, G. Livestock sector can threaten planetary boundaries without regionally differentiated strategies. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 370, 122444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, G.Q.; Zhang, B. Greenhouse gas emissions in China 2007: Inventory and input output analysis. Energ. Pol. 2010, 38, 6180–6193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Chen, G.Q. Methane emissions by Chinese economy: Inventory and embodiment analysis. Energ. Pol. 2010, 38, 4304–4316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabange, N.R.; Kwon, Y.; Lee, S.M.; Kang, J.W.; Cha, J.K.; Park, H.; Dzorkpe, G.D.; Shin, D.; Oh, K.W.; Lee, J.H. Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crop Production and Management Practices, and Livestock: A Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, D.; Deng, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, F. Livestock greenhouse gas emission and mitigation potential in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 348, 119494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossi, G.; Goglio, P.; Vitali, A.; Williams, A.G. Livestock and climate change: Impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Anim. Front. 2018, 9, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, F.; Leip, A. Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: A life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agric. Ecos. Environ. 2012, 149, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, X.Z.; Long, R.J.; Kreuzer, M.; Mi, J.D.; Yang, B. Methane emissions from yak (Bos grunniens) steers grazing or kept indoors and fed diets with varying forage: Concentrate ratio during the cold season on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Anim. Feed. Sci. Tech. 2010, 162, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsson, R.; Dicksved, J.; Sun, L.; Gonda, H.; Muller, B.; Schnurer, A.; Bertilsson, J. Methane Production in Dairy Cows Correlates with Rumen Methanogenic and Bacterial Community Structure. Front. Microb. 2017, 8, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, P.J.; Moss, A.; Lockyer, D.R.; Jarvis, S.C. A comparison of systems for measuring methane emissions from sheep. J. Agric. Sci. 1999, 133, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Archimede, H.; Rira, M.; Eugene, M.; Fleury, J.; Lastel, M.L.; Periacarpin, F.; Silou-Etienne, T.; Morgavi, D.P.; Doreau, M. Intake, total-tract digestibility and methane emissions of Texel and Blackbelly sheep fed C4 and C3 grasses tested simultaneously in a temperate and a tropical area. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, X.; Lu, T.; Tang, S.; Liu, X.; Ma, X.; Han, G.; Wilkes, A.; Wang, C. Methane emission from sheep respiration and sheepfolds during the grazing season in a desert grassland. Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2015, 9, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goopy, J.P.; Donaldson, A.; Hegarty, R.; Vercoe, P.E.; Haynes, F.; Barnett, M.; Hutton Oddy, V. Low methane yield sheep have smaller rumens and shorter rumen retention time. Brit. J. Nutr. 2014, 111, 578–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Savian, J.V.; Barth Neto, A.; Bitencourt de David, D.; Bremm, C.; Schons, R.M.T.; Moraes Genro, T.C.; Azevedo do Amaral, G.; Gere, J.; McManus, C.M.; Bayer, C.; et al. Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop–livestock system. Agric. Ecos. Environ. 2014, 190, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savian, J.V.; Schons, R.M.T.; Marchi, D.E.; Freitas, T.S.; Silva Neto, G.F.; Mezzalira, J.C.; Berndt, A.; Bayer, C.; Carvalho, P.C. Rotatinuous stocking: A grazing Rotatinuous stocking: A grazing management innovation that has high potential to mitigate methane emissions by sheep. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 602–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulyatt, M.J.; Lassey, K.R.; Shelton, I.D.; Walker, C.F. Methane emission from dairy cows and wether sheep fed subtropical grass dominant pastures in midsummer in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2002, 45, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.Z.; Hoskin, S.O.; Muetzel, S.; Molano, G.; Clark, H. Effects of forage chicory (Cichorium intybus) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) on methane emissions in vitro and from sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2011, 166–167, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lassey, K.R.; Ulyatt, M.J.; Martin, R.J.; Walker, C.F.; Shelton, I.D. Methane emissions measured directly from grazing livestock in New Zealand. Atmos. Environ. 1997, 31, 2905–2914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinares-Patino, C.S.; Lassey, K.R.; Martin, R.J.; Molano, G.; Fernandez, M.; MacLean, S.; Sandoval, E.; Luo, D.; Clark, H. Assessment of the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique using respiration chambers for estimation of methane emissions from sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2011, 166–167, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammond, K.J.; Pacheco, D.; Burke, J.L.; Koolaard, J.P.; Muetzel, S.; Waghorn, G.C. The effects of fresh forages and feed intake level on digesta kinetics and enteric methane emissions from sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2014, 193, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinares-Patino, C.S.; Hickey, S.M.; Young, E.A.; Dodds, K.G.; MacLean, S.; Molano, G.; Sandoval, E.; Kjestrup, H.; Harland, R.; Hunt, C.; et al. Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep. Animal 2013, 7, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Udval, G.; Urankhaich, C.; Altantsetseg, L.; Sangajav, D.; Gankhuyag, L. A Theoretical Baseline Study on Determining Methane Emissions from Ruminant Livestock (2019–2022); Mongolian State Livestock Research Agency: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2024. Available online: https://data.stf.gov.mn/report/5151 (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- Kumari, S.; Fagodiya, R.K.; Hiloidhari, M.; Dahiya, R.P.; Kumar, A. Methane production and estimation from livestock husbandry: A mechanistic understanding and emerging mitigation options. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 709, 135–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eggleston, S.; Buendia, L.; Miwa, K.; Ngara, T.; Tanabe, K. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/ (accessed on 22 February 2025).
- Jing, L.; Stauvermann, P.J.; Kumar, R.R. How the Tourism Industry Can Help Resolve Mongolia’s Environmental Problems. Economies 2025, 13, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badyelgajy, Y.; Doszhanov, Y.; Kapsalyamov, B.; Onerkhan, G.; Sabitov, A.; Zhumazhanov, A.; Doszhanov, O. Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Tourist Vehicles Using Mathematical Methods: A Case Study in Altai Tavan Bogd National Park. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornoiu, R.I.; Padurean, M.A.; Nica, A.M.; Maha, L.G. Tourism Consumption Behavior in Natural Protected Areas. Amf. Econ. 2014, 16, 1178–1190. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/168885 (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- Rusu, T.; Pacurar, I.; Dirja, M.; Pacurar, H.M.; Oroian, I.; Cosma, S.A.; Gheres, M. Effect of tillage systems on soil properties, humus and water conservation. Agric. Sci. 2013, 4, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Resources Institute. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis, A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2025).
- Baast, O. Protected Areas of Mongolia; Admon Printing: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2012; ISBN 99929-0-337-6. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, S.; Liu, B.; Wang, J.; Jin, D.; Zhang, H. Assessing Global Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Key Drivers and Mitigation Strategies. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Livestock Types | Methane Emissions from Enteric Fermentation (CH4) | Methane Emissions from Manure (CH4) | Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Manure (N2O) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per year | Per day | Per year | Per day | Per year | Per day | |
| Sheep | 13.77 kg | 37.7 gr | 0.19 kg | 0.52 gr | 0.02 kg | 0.054 gr |
| Goats | 5 kg | 13.7 gr | 0.17 kg | 0.46 gr | 0.02 kg | 0.054 gr |
| Cattle | 76.26 kg | 208 gr | 3 kg | 8.2 gr | 0.4 kg | 1.09 gr |
| Horses | 18 kg | 49.3 gr | 1 kg | 2.7 gr | 0.1 kg | 0.27 gr |
| Camels | 46 kg | 126 gr | 0.6 kg | 1.64 gr | 0.2 kg | 0.55 gr |
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. |
© 2025 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
Badyelgajy, Y.; Kapsalyamov, B.A.; Nyamsuren, K.; Marinescu, N. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of the Ecological Footprint from Tourism-Induced Livestock Aggregation in the Altai Tavan Bogd National Park in Mongolia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177870
Badyelgajy Y, Kapsalyamov BA, Nyamsuren K, Marinescu N. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of the Ecological Footprint from Tourism-Induced Livestock Aggregation in the Altai Tavan Bogd National Park in Mongolia. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177870
Chicago/Turabian StyleBadyelgajy, Yerbakhyt, Bauyrzhan Aueshanovich Kapsalyamov, Khosbayar Nyamsuren, and Nicolae Marinescu. 2025. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of the Ecological Footprint from Tourism-Induced Livestock Aggregation in the Altai Tavan Bogd National Park in Mongolia" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 7870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177870
APA StyleBadyelgajy, Y., Kapsalyamov, B. A., Nyamsuren, K., & Marinescu, N. (2025). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of the Ecological Footprint from Tourism-Induced Livestock Aggregation in the Altai Tavan Bogd National Park in Mongolia. Sustainability, 17(17), 7870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177870

