Emergy evaluation perspectives of an irrigation improvement project proposal in China
Emergy evaluation perspectives of an irrigation improvement project proposal in China
复制标题
中国灌溉改善项目提案的能值评估视角
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.017
复制
发表时间：
2011-09-15
影响因子：
7
通讯作者：
Luo, Zhaohui
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chen, Dan;Webber, Michael;Luo, Zhaohui
运用能值理论和方法，对我国某灌溉改造项目的可行性及其对当地农业发展的贡献进行了评价。提出了评价项目成本效益的能值方法和能值成本效益比（EmCBR）综合指标。能值分析表明，该项目的主要成本来自灌溉（占总成本的77.4%）和混凝土工程（占15.4%），其中节水（占总效益的43.0%）和农业增产（占56.9%）是最重要的贡献。计算出的EmCBR为0.97（可行项目的最低值为1.0），这表明该项目在能值方面不可行。根据能值产出率（EYR）、能值投资率（EIR）、环境负荷率（ELR）和环境可持续性指数（ESI）等能值指标，该区域农业系统不能从该项目中受益。结果表明，传统的成本效益分析可能无法提供一个适当的决策框架，因为它无法正确地评估资源和环境影响。应就拟议项目的其他替代办法完成更多的额外能值评估，以便为选择最有利于农业发展、对环境影响有限的最佳替代办法提供充分的指导。(C)2011 Elsevier B. V.保留所有权利。
Emergy theory and method are used to evaluate the feasibility of an irrigation improvement project in China and its contribution to local agricultural development. An emergy method for evaluating the costs and benefits of the project and a composite index named the emergy cost-benefit ratio (EmCBR) were developed. The emergy evaluation shows that the major costs associated with the proposed project come from earthwork (77.4% of the total cost) and concrete work (15.4%), and that water saving (43.0% of the total benefit) and agricultural yield increase (56.9%) are the most important contributions. The calculated EmCBR is 0.97 (the lowest value for a feasible project is 1.0) which indicates that this project would not be feasible in emergy terms. The regional agricultural system could not benefit from the proposed project, according to several emergy indices: emergy yield ratio (EYR), emergy investment ratio (EIR), environmental load ratio (ELR) and environmental sustainability index (ESI). The results show that conventional cost-benefit analysis could fail to provide an adequate decision-making framework because it is unable to value resources and environmental impacts properly. More additional emergy evaluations should be completed on other alternatives to the proposed project to provide adequate guidelines for selecting the best alternative that contributes most to agricultural development with limited environmental impact. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.