IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2020i1p121-d467865.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application and Comparison of Multiple Models on Agricultural Sustainability Assessments: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration, China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaolei Geng

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Dou Zhang

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Chengwei Li

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Yanyao Li

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Jingling Huang

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Xiangrong Wang

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China)

Abstract

Operationalization of sustainability assessments is necessary to promote the sustainable development of agroecosystems. However, primarily, focus has been on the development of sustainability assessment tools with less attention on whether these are suitable for adoption and implementation in specific areas. This drawback could lead to inappropriate management guidance for agricultural practices. Hence, three extensively used models, i.e., the Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework, ecological footprint (EF), and emergy analysis (EMA), were applied to quantify the sustainability performance of the agroecosystems in 27 cities in the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration (YRDUA), China, in 2016. The models were compared using the Pearson correlation analysis and natural break method, to determine a more adaptive method for agricultural sustainability assessments. The level of agricultural sustainable development of each city varied according to the methodology considered for its calculation. Compared with the EMA model, the DPSIR and EF models showed a better relationship (Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.71). The DPSIR model more accurately represented regional rankings of the agricultural sustainability at the municipality level due to its comprehensive consideration of multiple dimension factors and significance for policy making. However, each methodology has its own contribution depending on the study objectives. Hence, different models should be used for adequate determination of agricultural sustainable development at different regional scales; this would also enable better implementation of agricultural practices as well as policies in any given agricultural area for promoting the sustainable development of agroecosystems.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaolei Geng & Dou Zhang & Chengwei Li & Yanyao Li & Jingling Huang & Xiangrong Wang, 2020. "Application and Comparison of Multiple Models on Agricultural Sustainability Assessments: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:121-:d:467865
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/121/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/121/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huong T.T. Hoang & Quang Hai Truong & An Thinh Nguyen & Luc Hens, 2018. "Multicriteria Evaluation of Tourism Potential in the Central Highlands of Vietnam: Combining Geographic Information System (GIS), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Evelien M. de Olde & Henrik Moller & Fleur Marchand & Richard W. McDowell & Catriona J. MacLeod & Marion Sautier & Stephan Halloy & Andrew Barber & Jayson Benge & Christian Bockstaller & Eddie A. M. B, 2017. "When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1327-1342, August.
    3. Amaral, Luís P. & Martins, Nélson & Gouveia, Joaquim B., 2016. "A review of emergy theory, its application and latest developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 882-888.
    4. Wenqi Wang & Yuhong Sun & Jing Wu, 2018. "Environmental Warning System Based on the DPSIR Model: A Practical and Concise Method for Environmental Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Byomkesh Talukder & Alison Blay-Palmer & Keith W. Hipel & Gary W. VanLoon, 2017. "Elimination Method of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): A Simple Methodological Approach for Assessing Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Samir Mili & Javier Martínez-Vega, 2019. "Accounting for Regional Heterogeneity of Agricultural Sustainability in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    7. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    8. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    9. Siche, J.R. & Agostinho, F. & Ortega, E. & Romeiro, A., 2008. "Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 628-637, July.
    10. Alice Soldi & Maria José Aparicio Meza & Marianna Guareschi & Michele Donati & Amado Insfrán Ortiz, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Systems in Paraguay: A Comparative Study Using FAO’s SAFA Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-30, July.
    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. Chang Li & Tong Tong & Shutong Ge, 2023. "Evaluating the Ecological Sustainability of Agrifood Land in Ethnic Minority Areas: A Comparative Study in Yunnan China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-14, June.

    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. Zhuang, Minghao & Liu, Yize & Yang, Yi & Zhang, Qingsong & Ying, Hao & Yin, Yulong & Cui, Zhenling, 2022. "The sustainability of staple crops in China can be substantially improved through localized strategies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Norman Siebrecht, 2020. "Sustainable Agriculture and Its Implementation Gap—Overcoming Obstacles to Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-27, May.
    3. Ajun Wan & Xiaolei Qi & Weidong Yue & Runqiu Tu, 2022. "Construction and case verification of rural environmental value-added evaluation system," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1781-1797, February.
    4. Shu Yu & Yongtong Mu, 2022. "Sustainable Agricultural Development Assessment: A Comprehensive Review and Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Ajun Wan & Runqiu Tu & Weidong Yue & Yixuan Liu & Yunpeng Wu, 2021. "Construction and case study of rural environmental value-added evaluation system based on emergy theory," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 4715-4734, March.
    6. Umberto Lucia & Debora Fino & Giulia Grisolia, 2022. "A thermoeconomic indicator for the sustainable development with social considerations," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2022-2036, February.
    7. Ali Akbar Barati & Hossein Azadi & Milad Dehghani Pour & Philippe Lebailly & Mostafa Qafori, 2019. "Determining Key Agricultural Strategic Factors Using AHP-MICMAC," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Eyni-Nargeseh, Hamed & Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza & Rahimi-Moghaddam, Sajjad & Gilani, Abdolali & Damghani, Abdolmajid Mahdavi & Azizi, Khosro, 2023. "Which rice farming system is more environmentally friendly in Khuzestan province, Iran? A study based on emergy analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 481(C).
    13. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Chen, Yuhong & Lyu, Yanfeng & Yang, Xiangdong & Zhang, Xiaohong & Pan, Hengyu & Wu, Jun & Lei, Yongjia & Zhang, Yanzong & Wang, Guiyin & Xu, Min & Luo, Hongbin, 2022. "Performance comparison of urea production using one set of integrated indicators considering energy use, economic cost and emissions’ impacts: A case from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PC).
    15. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    16. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    17. Xiaojun Zhang & Weiqiao Wang & Yunan Bai & Yong Ye, 2022. "How Has China Structured Its Ecological Governance Policy System?—A Case from Fujian Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-22, July.
    18. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    19. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:121-:d:467865. 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.