4.7 Article

Is it true that the longer the extended industrial chain, the better the circular agriculture? A case study of circular agriculture industry company in Fuqing, Fujian

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 189, Issue -, Pages 718-728

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.119

Keywords

Circular agriculture; LCA evaluation; Environmental impact; Economic-environmental benefits

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41671531, 41271549]
  2. International S&T Cooperation Program of China [YS2017YFGH000562]
  3. National Societal Science Foundation of China [15ZDB163]
  4. Science &Technology Supporting Program of China [2012BAD14B03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Develop circular agriculture is an effective way to reduce pollution and achieve sustainable agricultural development. At present, both the government and scholars have stressed employing agricultural wastes at multiple levels and extending the industrial chain as much as possible. However, whether the abovementioned strategy is environmentally friendly is worth consideration. To address this issue, by using the evaluation method of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and taking the circular agriculture industry company of Xingyuan, Fuqing, Fujian as an example, this paper analyzes different circular agriculture models and explores the environmental loads and environmental benefits of each sub-industrial chain from the environmental and economic-environmental viewpoints. The results show that, from the LCA perspective, a longer industrial chain of circular agriculture is not better and at different evaluation angles, different optimal combinations of the industrial chain models of circular agriculture can achieve the minimum environmental load or the highest environmental benefit. This study will be useful for newly built enterprises or sector-integrated park to design new recycling networks from the life cycle and economic-environmental impact perspectives. (C) 2018 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