4.7 Article

A multi-criteria approach for comparison of environmental assessment methods in the analysis of the energy efficiency in agricultural production systems

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 228, Issue -, Pages 1464-1471

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.388

Keywords

Environmental Assessment (EA) methods; Energy Efficiency (EE); Agricultural production systems; Multi-criteria

Funding

  1. project Innovative alternatives of intelligent agriculture for agricultural productive Systems of the Department of Cauca supported in environments of loT [4633]
  2. Bank of joint projects UEES-sustainability of Project Network of training of human talent for the social and productive innovation in the Department of Cauca lnnovAccion Cauca [04C-2018]
  3. Colciencias

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, various environmental assessment methods have been developed. The aim of this paper is to compare these methods to identify their advantages and disadvantages when used to analyze energy efficiency in agricultural production systems. A systematic review of information helped to identify six environmental assessment methods: ecological footprint, material flow analysis, ecological network analysis, life cycle analysis, exergy, and emergy. A multi-criteria comparison was carried out, taking into account the level of formalization, system modeling, spatial scale, inventoried flows, type of indicators, relationship with the concept of efficiency, and usability of each of the methods. This work allowed the strengths and weaknesses of each environmental assessment method to be highlighted. Proving that the Emergy approach could provide a relevant framework for the analysis of the multiple energy flows that interact in an agricultural production system, and for achieving an integral understanding of energy efficiency in the whole system. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available