Support area as an indicator of environmental load: Comparison between Embodied Energy, Ecological Footprint, and Emergy Accounting methods

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorAgostinho, Feni [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Lucas
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-03T13:09:01Z
dc.date.available2014-12-03T13:09:01Z
dc.date.issued2013-01-01
dc.description.abstractEnvironmental aspects have been acknowledged as an important issue in decision making at any field during the last two decades. There are several available methodologies able to assess the environmental burden, among which the Ecological Footprint has been widely used due to its easy-to-understand final indicator. However, its theoretical base has been target of some criticisms about the inadequate representation of the sustainability concept by its final indicator. In a parallel way, efforts have been made to use the theoretical strength of the Emergy Accounting to obtain an index similar to that supplied by the Ecological Footprint. Focusing on these aspects, this work assesses the support area (SA) index for Brazilian sugarcane and American corn crop through four different approaches: Embodied Energy Analysis (SA(EE)), Ecological Footprint (SA(EF)), Renewable Empower Density (SA(R)), and Emergy Net Primary Productivity (SA(NPP)). Results indicate that the load on environment varies accordingly to the methodology considered for its calculation, in which emergy approach showed the higher values. Focusing on crops comparison, the load by producing both crops are similar with an average of 0.04 ha obtained by SA(EE), 1.86 ha by SA(EF), 4.24 ha by SA(R), and 4.32 ha by SA(NPP). Discussion indicates that support area calculated using Emergy Accounting is more eligible to represent the load on the environment due to its global scale view. Nevertheless, each methodology has its contribution depending of the study objectives, but it is important to consider the real meaning and the scope of each one. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv Estadual Paulista, Lab Prod & Meio Ambiente, Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniv Estadual Campinas, Coll Food Engn, Lab Ecol Engn, Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniv Estadual Paulista, Lab Prod & Meio Ambiente, Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.format.extent494-503
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.006
dc.identifier.citationEcological Indicators. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Bv, v. 24, p. 494-503, 2013.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.006
dc.identifier.issn1470-160X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/111827
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000311059900055
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofEcological Indicators
dc.relation.ispartofjcr3.983
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectCornen
dc.subjectEcological Footprinten
dc.subjectEmergy Accountingen
dc.subjectEmbodied Energy Analysisen
dc.subjectEnvironmental loaden
dc.subjectSugarcaneen
dc.titleSupport area as an indicator of environmental load: Comparison between Embodied Energy, Ecological Footprint, and Emergy Accounting methodsen
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.licensehttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/article-posting-policy
dcterms.rightsHolderElsevier B.V.
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-6445-2175[1]

Arquivos

Coleções

Artigos