پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,503 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,121,350 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,228,226 |
ارزیابی اثرات زیست‌محیطی و عملکرد اقتصادی سامانه‌های توزیع و مصرف آب کشاورزی در شبکه آبیاری و زهکشی سفیدرود | ||
| تحقیقات آب و خاک ایران | ||
| دوره 53، شماره 8، آبان 1401، صفحه 1937-1955 اصل مقاله (1.53 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/ijswr.2022.336826.669175 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سمیه جنت رستمی* 1؛ سید کاوه صادق پور2 | ||
| 1گروه مهندسی آب، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، گیلان. | ||
| 2گروه مهندسی آب، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| این مطالعه در شبکه آبیاری و زهکشی سفیدرود انجام شد. شالیزارهای برنج و باغات چای به عنوان محصولات کشاورزی مورد بررسی انتخاب شدند. عملکرد زیست‌محیطی با مجموعه‌ای از موضوعات زیست‌محیطی از جمله تغییراقلیم، تغذیه‌گرایی و غیره ارزیابی شد. عملکرد اقتصادی نیز با استفاده از کل ارزش افزوده محصولات نهایی سیستم اندازه‌گیری شد. در نهایت، با ارزیابی شاخص اکو-بهره‌وری موضوعات تاثیرگذار زیست‌محیطی، سیستم مورد مطالعه ارزیابی شد. نتایج نشان داد که مهم‌ترین موضوعات تأثیرگذار زیست‌محیطی، تغییرات آب و هوایی، سمیت انسانی، سمیت زیست محیطی آبزیان و کاهش سوخت‌های فسیلی به دلیل استفاده زیاد از کودها و آفت‌کش‌های شیمیایی، احتراق سوخت دیزل در ماشین‌آلات کشاورزی و پمپ‌های آب است. به طوری که، سهم هر یک از پارامترهای نامبرده به ترتیب 9/48، 9/47 و 4/2 درصد در مقدار اثرات موضوع تغییر اقلیم بدست آمد. علاوه بر این، در ارزیابی اثرات زیست‌محیطی دو محصول چای و برنج شاخص‌های نوع I، II و III تعریف شد که با توجه به مقادیر بدست آمده به طور کلی به دلیل بالاتر بودن اثرات زیست‌محیطی باغات چای نسبت به شالیزارهای برنج، شاخص‌های نوع I، II و III باغات چای بیشتر از شالیزارهای برنج بدست آمد. به عنوان مثال در موضوع اثرات تغییر اقلیم، نسبت شاخص نوع I، II و III چای به برنج به ترتیب 4/1، 2/4 و 7/2 محاسبه شد. علاوه بر این، سود اقتصادی محصول برنج در هر هکتار تقریباً 70 درصد بیشتر از چای بوده است، اما سود اقتصادی به ازای هر مترمکعب مصرف آب برنج به دلیل مصرف بالای آب در برنج، تنها 8 درصد بیشتر از چای بوده است. در نهایت، مقایسه شاخص‌های اکو-بهره‌وری موضوعات مختلف نشان داد که کمترین شاخص اکو-بهره‌وری برای تغییر اقلیم و کاهش سوخت‌های فسیلی به‌دست آمد. علاوه بر این، آنالیزها نشان داد که علی-رغم بیشترین اثرات زیست‌محیطی شالیزارهای برنج، به دلیل سود اقتصادی بالاتر نسبت به چای، بیشترین شاخص اکو-بهره‌وری مربوط به شالیزارهای برنج است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| اکو-بهره‌وری؛ سامانه‌های آب کشاورزی؛ اثرات زیست‌محیطی؛ عملکرد اقتصادی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Economic Performance of Agricultural Water Distribution and Consumption Systems in Sefidrood Irrigation and Drainage Network | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Somaye Janatrostami1؛ Kave Sadeghpour2 | ||
| 1Department of Water Engineering, College of Agriculture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Guilan. | ||
| 2Department of Water Engineering, College of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This study was done in Sefidrood Irrigation and Drainage Network. Paddy rice and tea gardens were selected as agricultural products. The environmental performance of the system was evaluated by selected environmental impacts categories such as climate change, Eutrophication, etc. Economic performance was also determined by using the total added value of the system's final products, according to water use and the adopted management practices. Finally, the value of area vulnerability was evaluated by assessing the eco-efficiency of these categories. The results showed that the most important environmental impact categories were climate change, human toxicity, aquatic eco-toxicity, and fossil fuels depletion because of high use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides, the combustion of diesel fuels in agricultural machinery and water pumps. So that the ratio percentage of the mentioned parameters were 48.9, 47.9, and 2.4% of the impact values of the climate change group, respectively. Furthermore, type I, II, and III indexes were defined for the environmental impact assessment of tea and rice, by which the tea indices were accordingly higher than those of rice due to their higher environmental impacts. For example, in the climate change group, the ratio of type I, II, and III indexes of tea to rice was calculated to be 1.4, 4.2, and 2.7, respectively. In addition, the economic performance of rice per hectare was approximately 70% more than the one of tea, however, the economic performance per cubic meter of water consumption in rice was only 8% more than the one in tea, due to high water consumption. Finally, the comparison of eco-efficiency indexes of different groups showed that the lowest eco-efficiency was obtained for climate change and fossil fuels depletion. In addition, the analysis showed that despite of the greatest environmental impacts of rice, the highest eco-efficiency index was related to rice due to higher economic performance compared to tea. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Eco-Efficiency, Agricultural water systems, Environmental impact, Economic performance | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abi Saab, M.T., Jomaa, I., Skaf, S., Fahed, S., and Todorovic, M. (2019). Assessment of a Smartphone Application for Real-Time Irrigation Scheduling in Mediterranean Environments. Water, 11, 252. Arampatzis, G., Angelis-Dimakis, A., Blind, M., and Assimacopoulos, M. (2016). A web-based Toolbox to support the systemic eco-efficiency assessment in water use systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138(2), 181-194. Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Kuhlmann, H., and Lammel, J. (2001). Application of the life cycle assessment methodology to agricultural production: an example of sugar beet production with different forms of nitrogen fertilisers. European Journal of Agronomy, 14 (3), 221-233. Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Barraclough, P., and Kuhlmann, H. (2004). Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology II. The application to N fertilizer use in winter wheat production systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 20 (3), 265-279. Canaj, K., Mehmeti, A., Cantore, V., and Todorovic, M. (2020). LCA of tomato greenhouse production using spatially differentiated life cycle impact assessment indicators: an Albanian case study. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27: 6960–6970. Canaj, K., Morrone, D., Roma, R., Boari, F., Cantore, V., and Todorovic, M. (2021). Reclaimed Water for Vineyard Irrigation in a Mediterranean Context: Life Cycle Environmental Impacts, Life Cycle Costs, and Eco-Efficiency. Water, 13, 2242. Canaj, K., Parente, A., D’Imperio, M., Boari, F., Buono, V., Toriello, M., Mehmeti, A., and Montesano, F.F. (2022). Can Precise Irrigation Support the Sustainability of Protected Cultivation? A Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. Water, 14,6. Cederberg, C., and Mattsson, B. (2000). Life cycle assessment of milk production e a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 49-60. Cerutti, A., Beccaro, G.L., Bagliani, M., Donno, D., and Bounous, G. (2013). Multifunctional Ecological Footprint Analysis for Assessing Eco-efficiency: A Case Study of Fruit Production Systems in Northern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 108-117. EcoWater, 2014. EcoWater Toolbox [accessible after registration]. Follett, R. (2001). Soil management concepts and carbon sequestration in cropland soils. Soil & Tillage Research, 61 (1), 77-92. Fotia, K., Mehmeti, A., Tsirogiannis, I., Nanos, G., Mamolos, A.P., Malamos, N., Barouchas, P., and Todorovic, M. (2021). LCA-Based Environmental Performance of Olive Cultivation in Northwestern Greece: From Rainfed to Irrigated through Conventional and Smart Crop Management Practices. Water, 13, 1954. Gomez-Limon, J.A., Picazo-Tadeo, A.J., and Reig-Martínez, E. (2012). Eco-efficiency assessment of olive farms in Andalusia. Land Use Policy, 29 (2), 395-406. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Liesen, A., and Barkemeyer, R. (2010). Opportunity cost-based analysis of corporate eco-efficiency: a methodology and its application to the CO2-efficiency of German companies. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1997–2007. Hinterberger, F., Bamberger, K., Manstein, C., Schepelmann, P., Schneider, F., and Psangerberg, J. (2000). Eco‐efficiency of regions: How to improve competitiveness and create jobs by reducing environmental pressure. Vienna, Sustainnabl Europe Research Institute (sERI). Huppes, G., and Ishikawa, M. (2005). Eco-efficiency and its terminology. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (4), 43-46. Jollands, N., Lermit, J., and Patterson, M. (2004). Aggregate eco-efficiency indices for New Zealandda principal components analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 73, 293-305. Keating, B.A., Carberry, P.S., Bindraban, P.S., Asseng, S., Meinke, H., and Dixon, J. (2010). Eco-efficient agriculture: concepts, challenges, and opportunities. Crop Science, 50(Suppl. 1), 109-119. Koskela, M., and Vehmas, J. (2012). Defining eco-efficiency: a case study on the finnish forest industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(8), 546-566. Levidow, L., Lindgaard-Jørgensen, P., Nilsson, A., Alongi Skenhall, S., and Assimacopoulos, D. (2016). Process eco-innovation: assessing meso-level ecoefficiency in industrial water-service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 110, 54e65. Levidow, L., Lindgaard-Jørgensen, P., Nilsson, Å., Skenhall, S.A., and Assimacopoulos, D. (2014a). Eco-efficiency improvements in industrial water-service systems: assessing options with stakeholders. Water Science & Technology, 69, 2113-2121. Levidow, L., Lindgaard-Jørgensen, P., Nilsson, Å., Skenhall, S.A., and Assimacopoulos, D. (2014b). Process eco-innovation: assessing meso-level eco-efficiency in industrial water-service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-12. Lv, B., and Yang, J. (2006). Review of methodology and application of eco-efficiency. Acta Oecologica, 26, 3898–3906. Mehmeti, A., Todorovic, M., and Scardigno, A. (2016). Assessing the eco-efficiency improvements of Sinistra Ofanto irrigation scheme. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138(2), 208-216. Müller, K., and Sturm, A. (2001). Standardized Eco-efficiency Indicators. Ellipson, Basel. Oggioni, G., Riccardi, R., and Toninelli, R. (2011). Eco-efficiency of the world cements industry: A data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy, 39, 2842–2854. Page, G., Ridoutt, B., and Bellotti, B. (2012). Carbon and water footprint tradeoffs in fresh tomato production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 32, 219-226. Park, S.E., Howden, S.M., Crimp, S.J., Gaydon, D.S., Attwood, S.J., and Kokic, P.N. (2010). More than eco-efficiency is required to improve food security. Crop Science, 50 (1), 132-141. Pelletier, N., Arsenault, N., and Tyedmers, P. (2008). Scenario modeling potential ecoefficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environmental Management, 42 (6), 989-1001. Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 447-465. Quariguasi-Frota-Neto, J., and Bloemhof, J. (2012). An Analysis of the Eco‐Efficiency of Remanufactured Personal Computers and Mobile Phones. Production and Operations Management, 27(10), 101-114. Rudenauer, I., Gensch, C.O., Griesshammer, R., and Bunke, D. (2005). Integrated environmental and economic assessment of products and processes e a method for eco-efficiency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (4), 105-116. Schaltegger, S., and Burritt, R. L. (2000). Contemporary environmental accounting: Issues, concepts and practice. Scheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Schaltegger, S., and Sturm, A. (1992). Ecology Induced Management Decision Support. Starting Points for Instrument Formation. WWZ-Discussion Paper No.8914, Basel, Switzerland. Schaltegger, S., Rikhardsson, P.M., Bouma, J.J., and Bennett, M. (2003). Implementing environmental management accounting. status and challenges. EMANEurope Annual Conference at the Aarhus School of Business, 6. 23-24 Jan. Todorovic, M., Mehmeti, A., and Cantore, V. (2018). Impact of different water and nitrogen inputs on the eco-efficiency of durum wheat cultivation in Mediterranean environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183:1276-1288. Todorovic, M., Mehmeti, A., and Scardigno, A. (2016). Eco-efficiency of agricultural water systems: Methodological approach and assessment at meso-level scale. Journal of Environmental Management, 165, 62-71. Wang, Y., Liu, J., Hansson, L., Zhang, K., and Wang, R. (2011). Implementing stricter environmental regulation to enhance eco-efficiency and sustainability: a case study of Shandong Province’s pulp and paper industry, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(4), 303-310. West, T.O., and Marland, G. (2002). A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 91 (1), 217-232. Willard, B. (2002). The sustainability advantage: Seven business case benefits of a triple bottom line. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 352 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 266 |
||