IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i4p535-d790238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Life Cycle Assessment of Major Staple Grain Crops in China

Author

Listed:
  • Jianing Wei

    (College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Jixiao Cui

    (Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Yinan Xu

    (College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Jinna Li

    (College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Xinyu Lei

    (College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Wangsheng Gao

    (College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Yuanquan Chen

    (College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

Abstract

The agricultural sustainable development for human well-being considers food security and ecological health as well as people’s socio-economic conditions. Nowadays, most of the holistic assessments of agricultural sustainability, mainly focus on food production and ecological consequences, relatively lacking analysis from the socio-economic perspective. In this context, this study constructs an agricultural social life cycle assessment model based on the guidelines of UNEP to assess the social and economic impacts on the three major staple grain crops in China, including maize, rice and wheat. The assessment model aims to analyze effects of stakeholders containing farmer, agricultural value chain actors, consumer, rural areas, society, and impact categories including high-quality growth of agriculture, a comfortable life in rural areas, the prosperity of rural people. The data is mainly from national statistical databases and representative industry databases. The impact assessment adopts social risk and social impact as quantitative characterization methods, and Analytical Hierarchical Process to obtain weights. The results show that: among the three major grain crops, farmers are the most important factors for stakeholders, and agricultural industrial development has the greatest potential negative impacts on society; maize has the most positive impacts on agricultural sustainable development in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianing Wei & Jixiao Cui & Yinan Xu & Jinna Li & Xinyu Lei & Wangsheng Gao & Yuanquan Chen, 2022. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Major Staple Grain Crops in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:4:p:535-:d:790238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/4/535/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/4/535/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xie, Zhen & Zhang, Fengrong & Lun, Fei & Gao, Yang & Ao, Jia & Zhou, Jian, 2020. "Research on a diagnostic system of rural vitalization based on development elements in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Catherine Benoit-Norris & Deana Aulisio Cavan & Gregory Norris, 2012. "Identifying Social Impacts in Product Supply Chains:Overview and Application of the Social Hotspot Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(9), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Lena Jarosch & Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Matthias Finkbeiner & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "A Regional Socio-Economic Life Cycle Assessment of a Bioeconomy Value Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Adriana Rivera-Huerta & María de la Salud Rubio Lozano & Alejandro Padilla-Rivera & Leonor Patricia Güereca, 2019. "Social Sustainability Assessment in Livestock Production: A Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Yazdan Soltanpour & Iuri Peri & Leila Temri, 2019. "Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality," Post-Print hal-02114758, HAL.
    6. Jun Kono & York Ostermeyer & Holger Wallbaum, 2018. "Trade-Off between the Social and Environmental Performance of Green Concrete: The Case of 6 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Ahmad Nadim Azimi & Sébastien M. R. Dente & Seiji Hashimoto, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment of Household Waste Management System in Kabul City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-26, April.
    8. Jasmin Werker & Christina Wulf & Petra Zapp, 2019. "Working conditions in hydrogen production: A social life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(5), pages 1052-1061, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Giuliana Vinci & Roberto Ruggieri & Marco Ruggeri & Sabrina Antonia Prencipe, 2023. "Rice Production Chain: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment—A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Westaway, Sally & Żyłowski, Tomasz & Hardiman, Sam & Smith, Laurence G., 2024. "Integrating sustainability assessment tools with life cycle analysis for agroecological systems: A UK case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    3. Zafar, Imaad & Stojceska, Valentina & Tassou, Savvas, 2024. "Social sustainability assessments of industrial level solar energy: A systematic review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Somayeh Rezaei Kalvani & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ibrahim Kabir Abdullahi, 2021. "Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Louisa Pollok & Sebastian Spierling & Hans-Josef Endres & Ulrike Grote, 2021. "Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.
    3. Martins, Flavio Pinheiro & De-León Almaraz, Sofía & Botelho Junior, Amilton Barbosa & Azzaro-Pantel, Catherine & Parikh, Priti, 2024. "Hydrogen and the sustainable development goals: Synergies and trade-offs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Vibeke Grupe Larsen & Valentina Antoniucci & Nicola Tollin & Peter Andreas Sattrup & Krister Jens & Morten Birkved & Tine Holmboe & Giuliano Marella, 2023. "A Methodological Framework to Foster Social Value Creation in Architectural Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Anja Hansen & Jörn Budde & Annette Prochnow, 2016. "Resource Usage Strategies and Trade-Offs between Cropland Demand, Fossil Fuel Consumption, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Building Insulation as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-24, June.
    6. Stefan Gold & Thomas Chesney & Tim Gruchmann & Alexander Trautrims, 2020. "Diffusion of labor standards through supplier–subcontractor networks: An agent‐based model," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(6), pages 1274-1286, December.
    7. Moana S. Simas & Laura Golsteijn & Mark A. J. Huijbregts & Richard Wood & Edgar G. Hertwich, 2014. "The “Bad Labor” Footprint: Quantifying the Social Impacts of Globalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-27, October.
    8. Guang Han & Zehao Wei & Huawei Zheng & Liqun Zhu, 2024. "Evaluation Index System of Rural Ecological Revitalization in China: A National Empirical Study Based on the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-26, August.
    9. Giuseppe Ioppolo & Stefano Cucurachi & Roberta Salomone & Giuseppe Saija & Lei Shi, 2016. "Sustainable Local Development and Environmental Governance: A Strategic Planning Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Yang Liu & Jiajun Qiao & Jie Xiao & Dong Han & Tao Pan, 2022. "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Rural Revitalization and an Improvement Path: A Typical Old Revolutionary Cultural Area as an Example," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-24, October.
    11. Alberto Bezama & Jakob Hildebrandt & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Integrating Regionalized Socioeconomic Considerations onto Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluating Bioeconomy Value Chains: A Case Study on Hybrid Wood–Concrete Ceiling Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Tian, Xueyu & You, Fengqi, 2024. "Broaden sustainable design and optimization of decarbonized campus Energy systems with scope 3 emissions accounting and social ramification analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 373(C).
    13. Huijie Li & Jie Li, 2021. "Risk Governance and Sustainability: A Scientometric Analysis and Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Bach, Vanessa & Finogenova, Natalia & Berger, Markus & Winter, Lisa & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2017. "Enhancing the assessment of critical resource use at the country level with the SCARCE method – Case study of Germany," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 283-299.
    15. Irene Huertas-Valdivia & Anna Maria Ferrari & Davide Settembre-Blundo & Fernando E. García-Muiña, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, August.
    16. Arendt, Rosalie & Muhl, Marco & Bach, Vanessa & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2020. "Criticality assessment of abiotic resource use for Europe– application of the SCARCE method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    17. Grubert, E. & Zacarias, M., 2022. "Paradigm shifts for environmental assessment of decarbonizing energy systems: Emerging dominance of embodied impacts and design-oriented decision support needs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    18. Seksan Papong & Norihiro Itsubo & Yuya Ono & Pomthong Malakul, 2016. "Development of Social Intensity Database Using Asian International Input–Output Table for Social Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-25, November.
    19. Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis, 2020. "Integrating Individual Behavior Dimension in Social Life Cycle Assessment in an Energy Transition Context," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    20. Paola Lenzo & Marzia Traverso & Roberta Salomone & Giuseppe Ioppolo, 2017. "Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Textile Sector: An Italian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:4:p:535-:d:790238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

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