See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331796746

Emergy-based environmental accounting of one mining system

Article  in  Environmental Science and Pollution Research · March 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-04793-z

CITATIONS READS

0 73

7 authors, including:

Hengyu Pan Yong Geng

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai Jiao Tong University
12 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS    320 PUBLICATIONS   11,322 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xu Tian Jeffrey Wilson

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Dalhousie University
38 PUBLICATIONS   333 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   318 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable pathways for low carbon development in South Asia View project

Integrating Payment for Ecosystem Services in China's Circular Economy Policy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xu Tian on 30 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04793-z

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Emergy-based environmental accounting of one mining system

Hengyu Pan 1 & Yong Geng 1,2,3 & Xu Tian 1 & Jeffrey Wilson 1 & Wei Chen 1 & Shaozhuo Zhong 1 & Xiaoqian Song 2,4

Received: 7 January 2019 / Accepted: 5 March 2019

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Metal production from mineral resources is crucial for economic development. However, most mining activities usually target
short-term financial benefits, rather than long-term consideration on ecological sustainability. To better understand the impact of
metal production, systematic evaluation methods should be applied to complement current economic accounting tools. Under
such a circumstance, this study proposes an emergy-based metal production evaluation framework, taking a life cycle perspective
from the formation of mineral deposit to the final production of metal. Ecosystem service loss, CO2 emissions, and emissions’
impact are quantified, evaluating the comprehensive performance of a lead and zinc production system in Yunnan Province of
China. The results show that minerals contribute significantly to the formation of lead and zinc production; however, emergy
received in terms of money substantially undervalues environmental work associated with production. Such a metal production
system relies heavily on nonrenewable resources and put enormous pressures on local ecosystems. The beneficiation subsystem
generates the highest negative impact per emergy output, followed by the smelting and refining subsystem and the underground
mining subsystem. From climate change point of view, producing 1 ton of lead bullion leads to 1.79E+03 kg CO2eq. Electricity
use contributes a dominated share to the total CO2 emission of all subsystems. In addition, lead recycling can greatly reduce the
overall CO2 emission, indicating that it is necessary to build up a regional lead collection and recycling system. Finally, several
policy suggestions are raised by considering the local realities, aiming to promote sustainable development of this industry.

Keywords Environmental accounting . Emergy analysis . CO2 emission . Lead and zinc . Governance

Introduction term sustainability. Mineral resources are indispensable for

China’s rapid economic growth during the past 40 years is
based upon substantial resource depletion and serious envi-
ronmental degradation (Liu and Diamond 2008), mainly due
to pursuing short-term economic benefits rather than long-
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
* Yong Geng
ygeng@sjtu.edu.cn
1
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University, Shanghai 200240, People’s Republic of China
2
China Institute for Urban Governance, Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, No. 800 Dongchuan Road, Minhang, Shanghai 200240,
People’s Republic of China
3
Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security,
Shanghai 200092, People’s Republic of China
4
Collaborative Innovation Center for Energy Economics of Shandong,
Shandong Institute of Business and Technology, Yantai 264005,
People’s Republic of China
industrial activities and human society (Ali et al. 2017).
China has high metal mineral reserves and is now the leading
producer of many important metal minerals in the world. For
example, China ranks second (behind Australia) for lead/zinc
deposits and first for lead and zinc production and consump-
tion globally (Zhang et al. 2012). In 2016, China produced
about 4.665E06 tons of refined lead and 5.85E06 tons of zinc
which contributed to 42% and 44% of global lead and zinc
supply, respectively (China Nonferrous Metals Industry
Yearbook 2006–2017). Figure 1 depicts China’s increasing
trend of lead and zinc production and consumption from
2005 to 2016. Moreover, the emergence of clean energy ve-
hicles will further boost the anthropogenic consumption of
metallic lead and lead products (Sun et al. 2016). However,
China’s metal extraction is based upon backward mining tech-
nologies, with a lack of effective management. Plus, due to
irrational foreign trade policies, many metal minerals are be-
ing exported to other countries, further aggravating resource
depletion, ecosystem degradation, and various environmental
pollution issues (Geng et al. 2017). Within China, mining
activities induced many conflicts, leading to a demand for

Fig. 1 Supply and consumption 1,600.00
of lead and zinc in China and the
world during 2005–2016 (Unit:
1,400.00
E04 tons; data source: China 1,200.00
Nonferrous Metals Industry
Yearbook 2006–2017) 1,000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Refined lead production in China
Zinc production in China
Global lead supply
Global zinc supply
compensation due to the local natural capital damage and
ecosystem destruction with unequal financial returns. To
move toward sustainable development, China’s central gov-
ernment has decided to pursue Becological civilization,^
which requires to transform from a traditional Bgrow first,
clean up later^ development approach to a circular economy
approach (Geng et al. 2016, 2019). Besides, carbon emissions
of China’s mining sector contributed about 8.61% to the total
industrial emission during 1999–2013 (Shao et al. 2016).
China’s metallurgy industry emitted 1647 million tons CO2
in 2014 (Du and Lin 2018). This reflects the CO2 mitigation
challenge of this industry, especially in the face of the global
warming of 1 .5 °C alarm (IPCC 2018). Consequently, it is of
great importance to achieve sustainable mining in China due
to its important role and serious environmental impact. In this
regard, it is crucial to conduct environmental accounting of
mineral resources and the related production process so that
the key problems can be identified and solved.
Academically, traditional economic and environmental ac-
counting methods, such as direct market prices, labor inputs,
extraction and transportation costs, and willingness to pay,
tend to ignore or fail to quantify the contributions of ecosys-
tems by considering them to be an Binfinite sink^ or Bfree,^
and pursue short-term financial gains rather than long-term
management. These problems may result in a flawed account-
ing system, misleading those decision makers (Ukidwe and
Bakshi 2004). Although some studies quantified natural cap-
ital and ecosystem service in monetary terms (Costanza et al.
1997; de Groot et al. 2012), the complex role of ecosystems
still cannot be fully understood. For example, mineral re-
sources resulting from past and present ecosystem processes
require complex and different environmental work (Geng
et al. 2013). Ore exploration, development, and production
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Lead consumption in China
Zinc consumption in China
Global lead consumption
Global zinc consumption
can destruct ecosystem and generate various pollutants which
needs to be taken into consideration from an environmental
point of view. Therefore, a systematic accounting framework
is needed so that the costs of mineral production processes can
be appropriately uncovered to complement economic ap-
proaches. Recognizing the increasing importance of account-
ing ecosystems’ contribution to production, many researchers
have shifted from anthropocentric valuation methods to eco-
centric valuation methods, such as cumulative exergy extrac-
tion from the natural environment (CEENE) (Dewulf et al.
2007), ecological cumulative exergy consumption (ECEC)
(Ukidwe and Bakshi 2004), ecological footprint (EF)
(Hubacek et al. 2009), life cycle assessment (LCA) (Norgate
et al. 2007), and material flow analysis (MFA) (Krausmann
et al. 2009). However, these methods cannot recognize the
more complete role of natural system as a source, sink, and
regulator (Geng et al. 2013). For instance, although the system
of environmental and economic accounting (SEEA) (SEEA
Central Framework 2012), which aims at measuring the inter-
action of economy and environment, includes biophysical sta-
tistics, it excludes environmental degradation, thereby sending
the wrong or an incomplete signal to policy makers
(Bartelmus 2014).
Under such a circumstance, this study selects emergy ac-
counting (EMA) as the main evaluation method due to its
capacity to quantify the nature’s work from supply side and
measure production from any scale in comparable units
(Odum 2007). This feature enables to accurately evaluate the
overall sustainability of one system by considering environ-
mental integrity and dynamics at larger spatial and time scales
of biosphere, which is beyond the short-run sights of human
society (Liu and Yang 2018). It assigns environmental impacts
to sources more fairly from a life cycle perspective and
Environ Sci Pollut Res
discourages inefficient resource depletion (Geng et al. 2013).
EMA has been widely adopted to account mineral resources
due to many academic findings. For example, Odum (2000)
calculated the baseline crustal cycling value of 1.68E9 seJ/g
on the 15.83E24 seJ/year global emergy baseline. This default
unit emergy value (UEV) for all sedimentary materials implies
that all sedimentary ore deposits are of identical value (Cohen
et al. 2007). Cohen et al. (2007) developed unit emergy values
(UEVs) for 26 crustal elements based on published ore grade
cutoffs (OGC) by assuming that UEV and concentration are
linearly related. They further developed a predictive model
that relates the OGC value for an element to its crustal
abundance and price. De Vilbiss and Brown (2015) proposed
that mineral resource accounting should utilize Gibb’s
transformities and account only the emergy of a mineral’s
mixing exergy due to the irrevocable destruction of natural
capital in mineral harvesting. Several researchers employed
EMA to evaluate the performance of resource exploitation
and metal production systems, such as steel production (Pan
et al. 2016b; Zhang et al. 2009), cement production (Chen
et al. 2016; Pulselli et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2017),
Australian mineral reserves and US copper mines (Jamali-
Zghal et al. 2014), replacement of lead in solders (Almeida
et al. 2013), and gold mining (Ingwersen 2011). However, all
these studies ignored the local ecosystem service loss due to
ecosystem destruction caused by mining activities or the
Fig. 2 The location of Yunnan Province and the subsystems in China
abatement processes of the resulting emissions and wastes
which are the integral features of mining systems. Besides,
the CO2 emission should be quantified to prepare relevant
policy implications for responding climate change. Finally,
to our best knowledge, few EMA-based studies on primary
lead and zinc productions have been published.
The critical review reflects that the following challenges in
environmental accounting of mineral resources and metal pro-
ductions still exist, including (1) neglecting natural ecosys-
tem’s contribution to economic development, (2) ignoring
the more complete role of natural system, and (3) inadequate
consideration of negative impacts. Although some researchers
have addressed one or two issues, a systematic environmental
accounting framework is still lacking.
To fill such a research gap, this paper proposes an environ-
mental accounting framework based on EMA (overcoming
issues (1) and (2)), focusing on the total work required by
the environment (biosphere) and the human-dominated sys-
tems it supports (technosphere). It aims to address the local
ecosystem service loss due to vegetation deterioration, CO2
emissions, and pollutant emissions’ impact on local ecosys-
tem and human well-being (addressing issue (3)). In order to
test its feasibility, a case study approach is employed in one
lead and zinc production system in Yunnan Province,
Southwest China. The results of this study can help quantify
the UEVs and carbon footprint of lead and zinc production.
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

The scope of this study extends from the formation of the lead
and zinc deposit (representing the work of the environment) to
the production of lead bullion and zinc bullion (representing
human work). The remainder of this paper is organized as
below. After this introduction section, BMethods and data^
details the case study site and research methods, as well as
data sources. BResults^ presents research results. BPolicy
suggestions^ discusses research results and raises policy sug-
gestions. Finally, BConclusions^ draws research conclusions.
Methods and data
A short introduction of the studied lead and zinc
production system
In 2015, the total reserves of Pb mine and Zn mine were
estimated to be 17.38 and 41.02 million tons in China, respec-
tively. Yunnan Province, which has the richest reserves of lead
and zinc, accounts for 12.76% of China’s total lead reserves
and 22.62% of China’s total zinc reserves (National Bureau of
Statistics of China 2016). This study examines one lead and
zinc production system in Yunnan Province. The location of
Yunnan Province and the production system are illustrated in
Fig. 2.
This system has three subsystems, including the under-
ground mining subsystem which is located in Tengchong
County, the beneficiation subsystem which is located in
Gejiu City, and the smelting and refining subsystem which is
located in Gejiu City. Galena and sphalerite are the two prin-
cipal minerals containing lead and zinc in Yunnan Province.
The geologic grades of lead ore and zinc ore are 2.11% and
1.54%, respectively. The mining subsystem (S1, hereafter),
with a land cover of 5.18E+04 m2, takes the underground
mining approach. The raw materials of this subsystem include
lithospheric stocks of minerals, timber, explosive, concrete,
lubricants, etc. The ore is firstly removed by drilling and
blasting, then removed through the drift to the shaft, and fi-
nally hoisted to the surface for further concentration. The ben-
eficiation subsystem (S2, hereafter), with a land cover of
5.00E+04 m2, consists of crushing, screening, comminution,
grinding, and flotation process, and its raw materials include
lead-zine ores, foaming agents, active agents, industrial water,
hydraulic electricity, etc. The smelting and refining subsys-
tem (S3, hereafter), with a land cover of 1.60E+05 m2,
takes the pyrometallurgical processing and electrorefining
approach, and its raw materials include lead and zinc con-
centrate, coal, limestone, diesel, quartzite, magnesite brick,
etc. Figure 3 shows the flowchart of lead and zinc produc-
tion in this study.

Lithospheric Lead/Zinc Lead/zinc

stocks of concentrates concentrates
minerals

Flotation Blending
Cutting

Ore Disk
grinding pelletizing Ingot
Drilling Lead bullion
casting
Comminut Oxygen bottom-
-ion blown smelting Electric
dust Sulfuric acid
Blasting
collector
Bottom-blowing
Screening
reduction smelting Ingot
Lead bullion
casting
Hoisting
Coarse Fuming furnace
crushing blowing

Lead/zinc Lead/zinc
ore ore
Zinc oxide

Underground mining process Ore beneficiation process Smelting and refining process

Intermediated Process
Note: Product Raw material
product
Fig. 3 The craft chart of the production system
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Emergy accounting
Rooting in thermodynamics, ecology, and general systems
theory, emergy is defined as Bthe sum of all inputs of available
energy directly or indirectly required by a process to provide a
given product or flow when the inputs are expressed in the
same form (or type) of energy^ (Odum 1996).
Emergy is an environmental accounting method
which measures both the work of nature and humans
in production process and the complete role of natural
systems as a source, sink, and regulator (Geng et al.
2013). Based on emergy, Bdonor-side^ quality of re-
sources and ecosystem service can be measured so that
renewability and sustainability can be evaluated from an
environmental point of view. Unit emergy value (UEV),
including specific emergy, transformity, and other
emergy intensity coefficients, converts all nonrenewable
and renewable, imported and local input flows to
emergy units. In this way, nature’s environmental effort
and investment supporting economic system can be
measured so that more appropriate sustainable develop-
ment options can be raised.
Geobiosphere emergy baseline (GEB) is the total an-
nual emergy input to the geobiosphere, including three
main driving forces of dissipation of gravitational poten-
tial, sunlight, and deep heat (Brown and Ulgiati 2016).
Five GEBs have been adopted in emergy studies (Odum
1996; Campbell 1998; Odum et al. 2000; Brown and
Ulgiati 2010, 2016). To keep the results consistent,
UEVs from different baselines should be transferred into
those based on the same one (Pan et al. 2016a). This
study adopted the very recently updated emergy baseline
12.00E24 seJ/year.
When employing EMA to study the multi-products
system, by-products may be categorized as Bsplits^
which is the separation of a given by-product flow into
two or more flows having similar physical or chemical
characteristics or Bco-products^ which are flows or
items that cannot be separated and have different phys-
ical or chemical natures (Geng et al. 2010). Co-products
from a process have the total emergy assigned to each
pathway, while emergy is assigned to each Bleg^ of the
split proportionally. More details about the classification
and calculation can be found in Geng et al. (2010).
After converting all inputs to emergy units, emergy-based
indicator system can be raised and calculated to evaluate the
performance of systems. Traditional emergy indicators in-
clude intensity indicators aiming at convergence of resources
per unit of outputs; and performance indicators aiming at eval-
uating capability of production processes to exploit local re-
sources (emergy yield ratio), the environmental pressure
(emergy loading ratio), sustainability of development (emergy
sustainability indicator), etc.
Quantifying the contributions of geologic work
to mineral deposit
The mass enrichment method proposed by Cohen et al.
(2007), which assumes that the UEV for an ore body is line-
arly related to its concentration, was employed in this study to
quantify the geological contribution of the environmental sys-
tem to the mineral deposit. The geological contribution can be
calculated by using the following equations.
ERi ¼ OGCi =CCi ð1Þ
UEVi ¼ ERi  ð1:27E þ 09 seJ=gÞ ð2Þ
E m ¼ M i  FEOi  UEVi ð3Þ
where ERi is the enrichment ratio of element i, which is the
current economic minimum. OGCi (ore grade cutoff) is the
minimal ore concentration of element i for economic mining;
CCi is the average crustal concentration of element i; and
UEVi is the unit emergy value of element i. The value of
1.27E+09 seJ/g (on the 12.00E+24 seJ/year global emergy
baseline) is the contribution for global sedimentary cycle in-
cluding both the erosional and uplift (isostatic and continental)
work (Odum 1996). Em is the emergy of mineral i; Mi is the
mass of mineral i; and FEOi is the fraction of element i in the
extracted ore, % (Yu et al. 2016).
Quantifying the negative impacts of mineral resource
production
Mineral resource mining, beneficiation, smelting, and refining
can cause negative impacts on the local ecosystem and human
health. In this study, ecosystem services loss due to land use
change, CO2 emissions from production process, and waste
emissions impact on ecosystem and human health are studied
to quantify the corresponding negative impacts.
Quantifying ecosystem services loss due to mineral resource
exploitation
Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits people obtained
from ecosystems, which can be classified into four categories:
(1) provisioning services which include goods extracted from
ecosystems (e.g., timber and fibers), (2) regulating services
which can maintain the regulation of ecosystem processes
(e.g., carbon sequestration and climate regulation), (3)
supporting services which support the provision of all other
categories (e.g., soil formation and nutrient cycling), and (4)
cultural services which contribute to spiritual welfare (MEA
2005). In this study, the studied ecosystem services loss due to
vegetation deterioration include carbon sequestration, water
conservation, soil building, oxygen releasing, air pollution
mitigation, and nutrient uptake which exist externally to

existing markets. The biophysical value of ecosystem services
loss was quantified by the emergy method proposed by
Campbell and Tilley (2014), in which the emergy value of
an ecosystem service is determined to be the difference be-
tween the emergy flow in a natural system and the alternative
land-use. Due to mining and occupation of forest land,
the ecosystem services of the alternative land were as-
sumed to be zero. Equations (4–8) quantify the ecosys-
tem services loss:
Emergy of carbon sequestration
¼ ðGrams of carbon sequestered per area per year; gC=ha=yearÞ
 ðArea; haÞ  ðUEV of carbon; seJ=gÞ
Emergy of water conservation
¼ ðGrams of water conservation per area per year; g=ha=yearÞ
 ðArea; haÞ  ðUEV of water; seJ=gÞ
Emergy of forest nutrient removal
¼ ðNitrogen uptake per area per year; gN=ha=yearÞ
 ðArea; haÞ  ðUEV of nitrogen; seJ=gÞ
þ ðPhosphorus uptake per area per year; gP=ha=yearÞ
 ðArea; haÞ  ðUEV of phosphorus; seJ=gÞ
Emergy of soil building
¼ ðMass of soil carbon built per area per year gC=ha=yearÞ
 ðArea; haÞ  ðUEV of soil cabon; seJ=gÞ
Emergy of oxygen releasing
¼ ðMass of oxygen releasing per area per year g=ha=yearÞ
 ðArea; haÞ  ðUEV of oxygen; seJ=gÞ
Emergy of air pollution mitigation
¼ ðMass of air pollutant sequestered; g=ha=yearÞ
 ðArea of canopy cover; haÞ  ðUEV; seJ=gÞ
CO2 emissions evaluation
In this study, the CO2 emissions (CE) of all the produc-
tion systems are quantified. Total CE includes CE of
Environ Sci Pollut Res
raw materials consumed (Eq. 10), CE of electricity pur-
chased (Eq. 11), and CE of fossil fuel consumed (Eq.
12).
CERM ¼ ∑m
i¼1 RMinput  EFRM
i i
ð10Þ
where CERM is the total CO2 emission of raw material
inputs, RM iinput represents the amount of raw material i
consumed, and EF iRM is the emission factor of raw ma-
terial i consumed.
CEElectricity ¼ Electricityinput  EFElectricity ð11Þ
where CEElectricity is the total CO2 emission of electric-
ity consumed and EF Electricity is the related emission
ð4Þ factor of electricity. Here, we adopted emission factor
of Southern China Power Grid which covers Yunnan
Province with a value of 0.8 kg/kWh (Gan and Griffin
2018).
CEff ¼ ∑i ðADi  NCVi  CCi  Oi Þ ð12Þ
ð5Þ where CEff is the total CO2 emission from fossil fuel
consumed; ADi is the consumption amount of fossil fuel
i; NCVi represents the net caloric value of fossil fuel i;
CCi is the CO2 emission of unit net caloric value pro-
duced by fossil fuel i; and Oi is the oxygenation effi-
ciency of fossil fuel i.
The impact of emissions
ð6Þ
Mineral resource exploration, development, and produc-
tion generate pollutants which lead to corresponding ad-
verse impact on humans and ecosystem. Emergy-based
studies have been carried out, aiming at quantifying
emissions’ impact of production process (Liu et al.
2014; Pan et al. 2019, 2018; Zhang et al. 2009).
ð7Þ
Based on reviewing these previous studies, two basic
steps are applied in this study. The first step is to quan-
tify environmental work (ecological service) needed to
dilute the emissions to meet the related environmental
standards. Equation (13) calculates the amount of need-
ð8Þ ed air or water to dilute emissions. Equations (14–16)
display the procedures of quantifying them into emergy.
The second step is to quantify the adverse impact on
humans and ecosystem by employing potentially disap-
peared fraction (PDF) and disability-adjusted life year
ð9Þ (DALY) of eco-indicator 99 method which are displayed
in Eqs. (17–18).
W
M ¼d ð13Þ
c
where M is the mass of needed air or water to dilute
emissions; d represents the air or water density (1.00E+
Environ Sci Pollut Res
03 kg/m3 for water, 1.23 kg/m3 for air); W denotes the
annual emission amount of a given pollutant; and c is
the related environmental standard concentrations
(Ulgiati and Brown 2002).
Rw;air ¼ E w;air *UEVair ¼ 0:5*M air *v2 *UEVair ð14Þ
Rw;water ¼ E w;water *UEVwater ¼ M water *ρ*UEVwater ð15Þ



R2 ¼ Max Rw;air þ Max Rw;water ð16Þ
where Rw,air represents the emergy of needed air ecological
service and Rw,water denotes the emergy of needed water eco-
logical service. Ew,air represents the kinetic energy of air;
UEVair is the UEV of wind (1.91E+03 seJ/J (Ulgiati and
Brown 2002)); v is the annual average wind speed
(3.20 m/s); Ew,water represents the chemical energy of water;
UEVwater is the UEVof water (6.17E+04 seJ/J (Odum 1996));
and ρ represents the thermal value coefficient of water. Due to
that the different kinds of air or water pollutants can be diluted
simultaneously, only the largest value of Rw,air or Rw,water is
considered as the needed ecological services provided by en-
vironment.
R3 ¼ ∑mi  PDF ð%Þi  E Bio ð17Þ
where R3 represents the emergy of ecological loss; mi is the
mass of ith pollutant emitted; and PDF (%)i represents the
fraction potentially affected by ith pollutant. EBio is the emergy
of stored biological resource per square meter. In this study,
EBio of Guangxi Province (7.49E+11 seJ/m2) (which is next to
Yunnan Province and has similar biological features) was
adopted due to the lack of the local data (Zhang and Chen
2016).
F 2 ¼ ∑mi  DALY i  τ H ð18Þ
where F2 represents the emergy loss by affecting human well-
being; DALYi is the impact factor by ith pollutant; and τH
denotes the total per capita annual emergy input of the study
area. τH of Yunnan Province equals to 2.63E+16 seJ/person
(Chen et al. 2017).
The corresponding emergy based indicators
To evaluate the comprehensive performance of the mineral
resource production processes, the following emergy-based
indicators are proposed.
1. Product unit emergy value (PUEV, seJ/J or seJ/g):
PUEV is defined as the equivalent solar emergy re-
quired per unit of product output, which equals to
total emergy yield (or the total emergy required) (Y)
divided by the amounts of product output (E). This
indicator can evaluate the ecological efficiency of
one production system. The value of this indicator
is inversely related to the efficiency (Brown et al.
2012; Pan et al. 2016b).
PUEV ¼ Y =E ð19Þ
2. Product carbon footprint intensity (PCFI): PCFI is carbon
footprint emission per unit of product output. This indica-
tor provides important information on responding climate
change challenge.
PCFI ¼ CE=E ð20Þ
3. Emergy yield rate (EYR): EYR is defined as Y divided by
the sum of the purchased nonrenewable emergy (NP) and
the purchased renewable emergy (RP). This ratio mea-
sures the capability of industrial processes to exploit local
resources (Geng et al. 2010). A higher value of this ratio
denotes a greater return obtained from per unit of emergy
invested.
EYR ¼ Y =ðNP þ RPÞ ð21Þ
4. Intensity of negative impact (INI) (seJ/t): INI is the ratio of
the sum of emergy of ecological services needed to dilute
pollutants (R2), emergy of ecological losses (R3), emergy
of economic losses (F2), and emergy of ecosystem ser-
vices loss (EL) to the total product output. It reflects the
local ecosystem services loss and emissions’ potential im-
pact on the production process. A larger ratio indicates a
lower cleaner production level and a higher load on the
environment.
INI ¼ ðR2 þ R3 þ F 2 þ ELÞ=E ð22Þ
5. Improved environmental loading ratio (IELR): IELR is
the ratio of the sum of free nonrenewable emergy (NR),
NP, R2, R3, EL, and F2 to the sum of free renewable
emergy (R1) and RP. This ratio indicates the pressure of
production activities on the local ecosystem due to exploi-
tation of local resources.
IELR ¼ ðNR þ NP þ R2 þ R3 þ F 2 þ ELÞ=ðR1 þ RPÞ ð23Þ
6. Improved emergy sustainable index (IESI): IESI is the
ratio of the EYR to the IELR. IESI evaluates the overall
sustainability of the production system from society net
benefit and environmental pressure aspects.
IESI ¼ EYR=IELR ð24Þ
Data sources
This study has an interdisciplinary nature and requires data
from different sources. In order to obtain data on local mining

activities, several site investigations were conducted through
interviews with local workers, managers, and engineers. The
year 2018 was chosen as our study year due to the most recent
and complete data. All the obtained data were further screened
and double-checked so that those wrong information or data
can be removed. Besides, local governmental reports, such as
Yunnan statistics yearbooks and Yunnan energy statistics
yearbooks, are also the key data sources. The detailed data
sources and calculation processes of production inputs are
listed in the footnotes of Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Results
The results of emergy flows
Emergy flows within the metal production system
The emergy flow diagram of the metal production system is
shown in Fig. 4, using the emergy system symbols to display
the emergy flows, the role of the major system (environmental
system and the mineral resources exploitation system), the
subsystems (including the underground mining subsystem,
the beneficiation subsystem, and the smelting and refining
subsystem), and the interlinkages among them. Tables 1, 2,
and 3 show the emergy analysis results of the S1, S2, and S3,
respectively. For S1, local renewable inputs (R1), local nonre-
newable inputs (NR), purchased renewable inputs (RP), and
purchased nonrenewable inputs (NP) contributed 0.00%,
98.93%, 0.01%, and 1.06% to its total emergy input, respec-
tively. It is clear that minerals from local ecosystem made the
most significant contribution (98.93% of its total inputs),
followed by services (0.59% of its total inputs), indicating that
S1 relies heavily on local nonrenewable resources. For S2, the
emergy value of NP was about five orders of magnitude great-
er than the emergy value of R1 and NR. The contributions of
R1 and NR were considered to be negative. The NP mainly
came from raw ore (99.54% of its total inputs), followed by
electricity (0.29% of its total inputs). This reflects that the
emergy flow of S2 was dominated by nonrenewable resources
from the outside system. For S3, the emergy value of NP was
about six orders of magnitude greater than the emergy value of
R1. This indicates that ore concentrates (99.29% of its total
inputs) have the largest contribution to NP, followed by elec-
tricity (0.34% of its total inputs). This reflects that S3 relied
heavily on nonrenewable resources from the outside system.
The negative impact of mineral resource exploitation
Ecosystem services loss
Table 4 illustrates the ecosystem services loss caused by min-
eral resources exploitation. Total ecosystem services loss
Environ Sci Pollut Res
value of S1, S2, and S3 were 5.07E+17 seJ/year, 4.90E+
17 seJ/year, and 1.57E+18 seJ/year, respectively. These results
can provide useful implications for implementing future res-
toration and payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs.
For all the three subsystems, soil building, which can prevent
the damage from erosion and siltation and reduce the risk of
flood disaster, had the largest contribution to the total ecosys-
tem services loss, followed by SO2 removed and water
conservation.
CO2 emissions of the production systems
Tables 5 and 6 list the CO2 emission factors of inputs consid-
ered in this work. The CO2 emissions of inputs are listed in the
related emergy analysis table of each subsystem. Figures 5, 6,
and 7 show the CO2 emissions compositions of S1, S2, and
S3, respectively. For S1, electricity use dominated the total
CO2 emission, while the sum of the other inputs only contrib-
uted 3.28% of the total emission. For S2, the largest CO2
emission source was raw ore (55.04% of the total emission).
The second largest contributor came from electricity use
(42.59% of the total emission). Specially, electricity was also
found to dominate the CO2 emission of S2 by tracking emis-
sions sources of raw ore in S1 (95.82% of total emissions). For
S3, the concentrated ore contributed the largest share (54.26%
of the total emission), followed by electricity (31.46% of the
total emission) and coal (9.97% of the total emission). When
referring to the life cycle emissions, electricity use accounted
for 83.45% of the total emission for lead bullion. This dem-
onstrates the electricity’s significant contribution to the total
CO2 emission.
The emissions’ impact
As illustrated in Table 7, the total value of ecological services
needed to dilute pollutants (R2) of S1, S2, and S3 were 2.04E+
18 seJ/year, 1.65E+19 seJ/year, and 3.29E+17 seJ/year, re-
spectively. For S1, 99.94% of ecological services came from
water environment service needed to dilute water pollutants,
zinc. For S2, all ecological services came from water environ-
ment service needed to dilute the concentration of lead. For
S3, all ecological services came from air environment service
needed to dilute the concentration of arsenic. Table 8 shows
that the total values of emergy losses caused by pollutants (F2
plus R3) of S1, S2, and S3 were 2.15E+17 seJ/year, 1.48E+
17 seJ/year, and 9.75E+18 seJ/year, respectively. For S1 and
S2, the impact on human well-being contributed 98.61% and
97.69%, respectively, to the total value of emergy loss. The
carcinogenic effect caused by arsenic had a notable impact.
For S3, the emissions’ impact on ecosystem contributed
70.26% to the total emergy loss largely caused by the air
pollutant lead, followed by NOx which causes damage to eco-
system quality by the combined effect of acidification and
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 1 Emergy analysis table of the underground mining subsystem in study

Items Raw UEVs (seJ/ Ref. of UEV Emergy flows Percent of CO2
amount unit) (seJ/year) item (%) emission
(kg)

Local renewable resources (R1, max of 1–5) 5.89E+15 0.00%

Sunlighta 2.61E+14J 1.00E+00seJ/J By definition 2.61E+14
Wind (kinetic energy)b 9.12E+11J 1.87E+03seJ/J (Odum 1996) 1.71E+15
Rain (chemical potential energy)c 2.55E+11J 2.31E+04seJ/J (Odum 1996) 5.89E+15
Rain (geopotential energy)d 1.27E+11J 1.35E+04seJ/J (Odum 1996) 1.71E+15
Geothermal heate 5.71E+10J 4.37E+04seJ/J (Brown and Bardi 2001) 2.50E+15
Local nonrenewable resources (NR, Sum of 6–8) 2.40E+20 98.93%
Land lossesf 2.18E+11J 9.42E+04seJ/J (Pulselli et al. 2007) 2.05E+16 0.01%
Waterg 2.48E+04t 8.51E+11seJ/t (Wang et al. 2005) 2.11E+16 0.01%
Mineralsh 2.82E+04t 8.51E+15seJ/t This study 2.40E+20 98.93%
Renewable resources from outside the system 3.01E+16 0.01%
(RP, sum of 9)
Timberi 4.50E+01t 6.68E+14seJ/t (Meillaud et al. 2005) 3.01E+16 0.01% 1.08E+03
Nonrenewable resources from outside the system 2.57E+18 1.06%
(NP, sum of 10–14)
Steel (machinery)j 5.49E+00t 5.43E+15seJ/t (Zhang et al. 2009) 2.98E+16 0.01% 5.82E+03
Explosivek 1.20E+01t 4.88E+14seJ/t (Odum 1996) 5.86E+15 0.00% 2.40E+03
Concretel 7.20E+01t 1.38E+15seJ/t (Pulselli et al. 2008) 9.94E+16 0.04% 5.69E+03
Drill steelm 1.32E+00t 5.43E+15seJ/t (Zhang et al. 2009) 7.17E+15 0.00% 1.40E+03
Lubricantsn 1.50E+00t 4.95E+15seJ/t (Brown et al. 2012) 7.43E+15 0.00% 1.29E+03
Dieselo 7.05E+11J 8.39E+04seJ/J (Odum 1996) 5.91E+16 0.02% 8.06E+03
Electricityp 3.45E+12J 2.55E+05seJ/J (Odum 1996) 1.80E+17 0.07% 7.67E+05
Laborq 8.01E+10J 9.48E+06seJ/J (Pulselli et al. 2008) 7.59E+17 0.31%
Servicesr 2.39E+05$ 5.96E+12seJ/$ (Chen et al. 2017) 1.42E+18 0.59%
Products
Raw ore 2.82E+04t 8.60E+15seJ/t This study
Waste
Dust 8.15E+00t
COD 1.23E+01t
NH3-N 5.00E−01t
Pb 6.00E−03t
Zn 2.10E−01t
Cd 1.00E−03t
As 4.00E−03t

a
Area of the project = 5.18E+04 m2 , the average solar radiation = 5.02E09 J/m2 /year. Energy (J) = (Area) × (The average radiation)
b
Average wind speed = 3.2 m/s. Geostrophic wind = average wind speed × 10/6, air density = 1.23 kg/m3 , drag coefficient = 0.003. Energy
(J) = (Area) × (Air density) × (Drag coefficient) × (Geostrophic wind)3 × (3.154 × 107 s/year) = 4.58E+12J
c
Average rainfall = 0.9 93 m/year, Water density = 1000 kg/m3 , Gibbs free energy = 4.94 × 103 J/kg, energy (J) = (Area) × (Average rainfall) × (Water
density) × (Gibbs free energy)
d
Average rainfall = 0.993 m/year, elevation = 1260 m, water density = 1000 kg/m 3 , gravity = 9.8 m/s 2 , energy (J) = (Area) × (Average
rainfall) × (Elevation) × (Average ratio) × (Water density) × (Gravity)
e
Area of the project = 5.18E+04 m2 ; heat flow (average) = 3.50 × 10−2 J/m2 /s. Energy = (area) × (heat flow) = (5.18E+04 m2 ) × (3.50E−02 J/m2 /
s) × (3.15E+07 s/year) = 5.71E+10 J/year
f
Soil erosion has been assumed to be an environmental input in order to evaluate the permanent loss of biocapacity due to excavation. We calculated the
portion of organic matter for 1 m deep excavation, assuming that there is not any organic matter under the first meter. According to Andri et al. (2017), the
landloss can be calculated as landloss = Vexs ∗ ρs ∗ fos ∗ es, where Vexs is the excavated soil volume (217.32 m3 ), ρs is the soil density (1.6E+06 g/m3 ), fos
is the amount of organic substance in soil (3%), and es is the soil energy content (20930J/g). The data came from (Pulselli et al. 2007)
g
The raw data came from our investigation
h
The emergy of mineral was calculated based on Eqs. (1)–(3). In this study, average grades of Pb and Zn are 2.11% and 1.54%, respectively. The OGC
fraction of Pb and Zn is 4.00E−03 and 3.00E−03, respectively. And, the crustal fraction of Pb and Zn is 1.40E−05 and 7.00E−05, respectively
i
The raw data came from related environment impact assessment report
j
Machinery has been divided by plant lifetime, 13.68 years
k–n
The raw data came from the environment impact assessment report
o
Mass of diesel = 9. 36 t/year. Energy content per t = 7.53E+10J/t. Energy = 7.05E+11J
p
Electricity = 9.59E+05 kWh/year × 3.6E06 J/kW h = 3.45E+12 J/year
q
Average quantity = 300 days/year, working hours = 8 h/day, conversion = 523,250 J/h (Pulselli et al. 2008), number of workers is 150, energy = average
quantity × working hours × conversion
r
Services have been divided by plant lifetime, 13.68 years
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 2 Emergy analysis table of the beneficiation subsystem in study

Items Raw amount UEV (seJ/unit) Ref. of UEV Emergy flows Percent of CO2
(seJ/ha/year) item (%) emission
(kg)

Local renewable resources (R1, max of 1–5) 5.68E+15 0.00%

Sunlighta 2.52E+14J 1.00E+00seJ/J By definition 2.52E+14
Wind (kinetic energy)b 8.80E+11J 1.87E+03seJ/J (Odum 1996) 1.65E+15
Rain (chemical potential energy)c 2.46E+11J 2.31E+04seJ/J (Odum 1996) 5.68E+15
Rain (geopotential energy)d 1.23E+11J 1.35E+04seJ/J (Odum 1996) 1.66E+15
Geothermal heate 5.51E+10J 4.37E+04seJ/J (Brown and Bardi 2001) 2.41E+15
Local nonrenewable resources (NR, sum of 6) 4.97E+16 0.00%
Waterf 5.84E+04t 8.51E+11seJ/t (Wang et al. 2005) 4.97E+16 0.00%
Nonrenewable resources from outside the 2.16E+21 100.00%
system (NP, sum of 7–17)
Raw oreg 2.50E+05t 8.60E+15seJ/t This study 2.15E+21 99.54% 7.03E+06
Limestoneh 3.75E+02t 1.27E+15seJ/t (Odum 1996) 4.76E+17 0.02% 2.81E+05
Sodium silicatei 6.25E+01t 3.32E+15seJ/t (Pan et al. 2016a) 2.08E+17 0.01%
Oilj 1.25E+01t 2.01E+15seJ/t (Bastianoni et al. 2009) 2.51E+16 0.00% 1.12E+04
Butyl xanthate (chemicals)k 5.00E+01t 4.84E+14seJ/t (Odum 1996) 2.42E+16 0.00%
Black catching agent (chemicals)l 2.50E+01t 4.84E+14seJ/t (Odum 1996) 1.21E+16 0.00%
Electricitym 2.45E+13J 2.55E+05seJ/J (Odum 1996) 6.25E+18 0.29% 5.44E+06
Machinery (steel)n 9.30E+00t 5.43E+15seJ/t (Zhang et al. 2009) 5.05E+16 0.00% 9.86E+03
Transport (truck)o 1.25E+06 t*km 7.61E+11seJ/t*km (Brown and Buranakarn 9.51E+17 0.04%
2003)
Laborp 8.04E+10J 9.48E+06seJ/J (Pulselli et al. 2008) 7.62E+17 0.04%
Servicesq 1.48E+05$ 5.96E+12seJ/$ (Chen et al. 2017) 8.82E+17 0.04%
Products
Lead concentrates 1.16E+04t 1.87E+17 This study
Zinc concentrates 1.34E+04t 1.61E+17 This study
Waste
Tailings 2.21E+05t
COD 4.25E+00t
Cu 8.50E−03t
Pb 3.40E−01t
Zn 8.50E−02t
Cd 1.28E−03t
As 4.25E−03t
NH3-N 2.13E−01t

According to emergy algebra, products in this study are considered as co-products

a–e
Area of the project = 5.00E+04 m2 , and the detail calculating process see footnote of Table 1
f–l
The raw data came from our investigation
m
Electricity = 6.80E+06 kWh/year × 3.6E06 J/kWh = 2.45E+13 J/year
n
Machinery has been divided by plant lifetime, 20 years
o
Transport (truck) distance = 5 km, mass = 2.50E+05t
p
Average quantity = 300 days/year, working hours = 8 h/day, conversion = 523,250 J/h (Pulselli et al. 2008), number of workers is 64, energy = Average
quantity × working hours × Conversion
q
Services has been divided by plant lifetime, 20 years

eutrophication. In addition, NOx posed the greatest risk to
human health by causing respiratory disorder and negative
health effect.
Table 9 summarizes the values of different negative im-
pacts. The contribution shares of ecological services, emergy
loss, and ecosystem service loss are illustrated in Fig. 8. For
S1, the ecological service needed to dilute pollutants was the
largest contribution to the total negative impact (73.86% of its
total value), followed by ecosystem service loss (18.36% of its
total value) and emergy loss (7.78% of its total value). For S2,
96.28% of the total negative impact came from ecological
service needed, while ecosystem service loss and emergy loss
contributed 2.86% and 0.86%, respectively, to the total nega-
tive impact. For S3, 83.70%, 13.48%, and 2.82% of the total
negative impact were contributed by emergy loss, ecosystem
service loss, and ecological service, respectively.
Emergy-based indicators
Table 10 shows the values of emergy-based indicators in this
study. The UEVs of raw ore, lead concentrates, and lead bul-
lion are 8.60E+15 seJ/t, 1.87E+17 seJ/t, and 3.59E+17 seJ/t,
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 3 Emergy analysis table of the smelting and refining subsystem in study

Items Raw UEV (seJ/unit) Ref. of UEVs Emergy flows Percent of CO2
amount (seJ/ha/year) item (%) emission (kg)

Local renewable resources (R1, max of 1–5) 1.82E+16 0.00%

Sunlighta 8.06E+14J 1.00E+00seJ/J By definition 8.06E+14
Wind (kinetic energy)b 2.82E+12J 1.87E+03seJ/J (Odum 1996) 5.27E+15
Rain (chemical potential energy)c 7.88E+11J 2.31E+04seJ/J (Odum 1996) 1.82E+16
Rain (geopotential energy)d 3.92E+11J 1.35E+04seJ/J (Odum 1996) 5.29E+15
Geothermal heate 1.76E+11J 4.37E+04seJ/J (Brown and Bardi 7.69E+15
2001)
Nonrenewable resources from outside the 3.83E+22 100.00%
system (NP, sum of 6–20)
Ore concentratesf 2.04E+05t 1.87E+17seJ/t This study 3.80E+22 99.29% 1.04E+08
Coalg 9.45E+14J 6.55E+04seJ/J (Zhang et al. 2017) 6.19E+19 0.16% 1.91E+07
Limestoneh 9.41E+03t 1.27E+15seJ/t (Odum 1996) 1.20E+19 0.03% 7.06E+06
Quartzitei 1.47E+04t 1.27E+15seJ/t (Odum 1996) 1.87E+19 0.05%
Fire-proof materialsj 3.60E+02t 1.35E+14seJ/t (Wang et al. 2005) 4.86E+16 0.00%
Oxygen lance (steel)k 1.50E+02t 5.43E+15seJ/t (Zhang et al. 2009) 8.15E+17 0.00% 1.59E+05
Diesell 2.48E13J 8.39E+04seJ/J (Odum 1996) 2.08E+18 0.01% 2.84E+05
Waterm 7.87E+05t 8.51E+11seJ/t (Wang et al. 2005) 6.70E+17 0.00%
Electricityn 5.06E+14J 2.55E+05seJ/J (Odum 1996) 1.29E+20 0.34% 6.03E+07
Transport (truck)o 6.11E+ 7.61E+ (Brown and 4.65E+18 0.01%
06 t*km 11seJ/t*km Buranakarn 2003)
Steel (machinery)p 6.68E+02t 5.43E+15seJ/t (Zhang et al. 2009) 3.63E+18 0.01% 7.08E+05
Concrete (melting furnace)q 6.63E+02t 1.38E+15seJ/t (Pulselli et al. 2008) 9.15E+17 0.00% 5.24E+04
Fire-proof materials (melting furnace)r 4.89E+02t 1.35E+14seJ/t (Wang et al. 2005) 6.60E+16 0.00%
Labors 1.59E+12J 9.48E+06seJ/J (Pulselli et al. 2008) 1.51E+19 0.04%
Servicest 4.66E+06$ 5.96E+ (Chen et al. 2017) 2.78E+19 0.07%
12seJ/$
Products
Lead bullion 1.07E+05t 3.59E+17 This study
Sulfuric acid 9.28E+04t 4.13E+17 This study
Zinc oxide 1.83E+04t 2.09E+18 This study
Waste
Dust 4.42E+01t
SO2 4.59E+02t
NOx 3.70E+02t
Pb 2.22E+00t
As 1.64E-01t
Cd 8.51E-02t
Mercury 8.80E-03t

According to emergy algebra, products in this study are considered as co-products

a–e
Area of the project =1.60E+05 m2 , detail calculating process see footnote 1–5 of Table 2
f
The data came from our investigation
g
Energy = mass (kg) × energy content per kilogram. Here, mass = 3.595E07 kg, energy content per kilogram coal = 2.63E07 J/kg (Zhang et al. 2017)
h–k
The data came from our investigation
l
Mass of diesel = 3.30E+02 t/year. Energy content per t = 7.53E+10 J/t. Energy = 2.48E+13 J
m
The data came from our investigation
n
Electricity = 1.41E+08 kWh/year × 3.6E06 J/kW h = 5.06E+14 J/year
o
Transport (truck) distance = 30 km, mass = 2.04E+05 t
p
Machinery has been divided by plant lifetime, 20 years
q,r
Melting furnace has been divided by plant lifetime, 20 years
s
Average quantity = 330 days/year, working hours = 8 h/day, conversion = 523,250 J/h (Pulselli et al. 2008), number of workers is 1150, energy =
Average quantity × working hours × Conversion
t
Services has been divided by plant lifetime, 20 years
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

NR RP NP

US$

Y
Resource Ore Smelting and
stock Underground
beneficiation refining
mining system
R1 Environmental system system system

Market
EL
F2
Tailings
R2 pond
Waste
Waste
treatment
R3

Fig. 4 Emergy flow diagram of the metal production system

respectively. These values can be used by emergy practitioners
seeking the UEVs of lead- and zinc-related production.
For S1, the value of EYR indicates that the emergy yield is
over three orders of magnitude greater than the purchased
inputs. This is mainly due to the extraction of the large
amounts of local nonrenewable resources, especially minerals
(99.19% of its total input). According to the definition, a
higher value of EYR indicates a greater return obtained from
per unit of emergy invested. This reflects that S1 has a high
investment efficiency. However, several challenges still re-
main, such as local mineral resources depletion and ecosystem
destruction.
For S2 and S3, due to the large amounts of purchased
nonrenewable resources, the values of EYR were both equal
to 1. The values of INI are increasing from S1 to S2, reflecting
a higher negative impact caused by ecosystem destruction and
emissions per output. However, the decreasing values of INI
from S2 to S3 were accompanied by the increasing values of
IELR. In addition, the values of IELR were extremely high,
reflecting severe ecosystem stress due to exploitation of local
mineral resources and the enormous pressure of industrial ac-
tivities on the local environment. This is mainly derived from
the consumption of large amounts of nonrenewable resources.
Finally, the IESI values of all the subsystems were extremely

Table 4 Ecosystem services loss caused by mineral resources exploitation

Items Average value (g/m2)a UEVs (seJ/g) References of UEVs Ecosystem Ecosystem Ecosystem
service loss service loss service loss
of S1 (seJ/year) of S2 (seJ/year) of S3 (seJ/year)

1. Carbon sequestration 2.04E+02 4.40E+08 (Campbell and Tilley 2014) 4.67E+15 4.50E+15 1.44E+16
2. Water conservation 2.20E+05 8.51E+05 (Wang et al. 2005) 9.69E+15 9.35E+15 2.99E+16
3. Soil building 5.68E+03 1.59E+09 (Campbell and Tilley 2014) 4.67E+17 4.50E+17 1.44E+18
4. Oxygen releasing 5.47E+02 6.56E+07 (Ulgiati and Brown 2002) 1.86E+15 1.80E+15 5.75E+15
5. SO2 removed 1.18E+01 3.99E+10 (Campbell and Tilley 2014) 2.43E+16 2.35E+16 7.51E+16
6. NOx removed 5.21E−01 5.19E+09 (Campbell and Tilley 2014) 1.40E+14 1.35E+14 4.33E+14
7. Nitrogen uptake 2.50E+00 3.11E+07 (Campbell and Tilley 2014) 4.01E+12 3.87E+12 1.24E+13
8. Phosphorus uptake 2.32E−01 1.64E+08 (Campbell and Tilley 2014) 1.97E+12 1.90E+12 6.09E+12
9. Potassium uptake 1.42E+00 1.32E+09 (Brandt-Williams 2002) 9.75E+13 9.41E+13 3.01E+14
Total ecosystem service loss 5.07E+17 4.90E+17 1.57E+18
a
These parameters were obtained from Zhao et al. (2010)
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 5 Fossil fuels related emission factors 1.02%

Items NCV (PJ/E04 tons) CC (tonC/TJ) O

Coal 0.21 26.32 94%

Diesel 0.43 20.2 98%
Lubricants 0.51 17.2 98%
Fuel oil 0.43 21.1 98%

Values of NCV and CC came from (Shan et al. 2018), and values of O
came from (NDRC 2011)

low, indicating an unsustainable production feature. The de-

creasing IESI from S1 to S3 also shows a declining sustain- 96.72%
ability level mainly due to the increasing share of nonrenew-
able resources.
Steel Concrete Diesel Electricity
Policy suggestions Fig. 5 CO2 emissions compositions of S1

The results from emergy-based indicators reflect that all the
subsystems are facing serious challenges of achieving sustain-
able development, mainly attributed by large shares of nonre-
newable inputs. Besides, mineral production processes have
significant impacts on local ecosystem and human health.
These research results can help understand ecological costs
of this metal production industry, which normally pursues
short-term economic benefits, rather than long-term sustain-
ability. In order to improve its sustainable development, sev-
eral policy suggestions are proposed and discussed below:
First of all, it is necessary for this metal production system
to respond climate change by encouraging renewable and
clean energy. Within China, coal-fired power contributed
about 69% to the total electricity generation in 2015 (Liang
et al. 2019). Although some progresses have been made to
promote the application of renewable and clean energy in
China, the overall share of such energy sources is still low,
comparing with other developed countries. For example, the
coal-fired power only contributed 34%, 23%, and 2% to the
total electricity in USA, UK, and France, respectively, while
such a figure was about 80% in China (Liang et al. 2019).
Therefore, encouraging renewable energy use is the top prior-
ity to reduce CO2 emissions of lead bullion production
Table 6 Emission factors of raw material inputs in this study
Item Emission factor Unit Data source
systems. In this regard, Yunnan has a unique advantage due
to its huge potential to apply hydrological power, geothermal
power, and wind power (Chen et al. 2017). Also, it is crucial to
further improve energy efficiency by applying more advanced
technologies and equipment. In particular, cleaner production
is one effective approach to help this industry identify the key
energy inefficient processes and promote its overall efficiency.
Consequently, all the practitioners in this industry should ini-
tiate cleaner production efforts so that the overall eco-
efficiency of this industry can be increased.
Second, to promote circular economy in this industry is
critical. Pan et al. (2019) studied the sustainability of one lead
recycling system based on emergy accounting. By comparing
the indicator results between primary lead production system
and recycling system (see Table 10), it is clear that the PUEV
of primary lead production is 103 times larger than that of
0.08%
42.59%
55.04%

Wood (timber) 23.90 kg CO2/t (Li et al. 2017)

Steel 2200.00 kg CO2/t (Li et al. 2017) 0.09%
Concrete 79.00 kg CO2/t (Li et al. 2017) 2.20%
Explosive 200 kg CO2/t (Gan and Griffin 2018)
Raw ore Limestone Oil Electricity Steel
Limestone 750 kg CO2/t (IPCC 2006)
Fig. 6 CO2 emissions compositions of S2
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 7 CO2 emissions 0.03%

compositions of S3

31.46%

54.26%
0.15%
0.45%
3.68% 9.97%

Ore concentrates Coal Limestone Steel Diesel Electricity Concrete

secondary production, while life cycle intensity of negative
impact of primary lead production is much higher than that
of secondary production. This indicates that the secondary
lead production has a much higher production efficiency and
much less environmental pressure than the primary lead pro-
duction. Consequently, more secondary lead and zine collec-
tion sites should be established so that the overall demand on
virgin lead and zinc can be reduced. However, China’s sec-
ondary lead production only contributed 29.3% to the total
produced lead in 2012, which is much lower than that in
Europe (90%), USA (more than 80%), and the global average
(60–66%) (Zhang et al. 2016). Such a reality indicates that
more capacity-building efforts should be made to improve
the public’s awareness so that they can send such secondary

Table 7 The ecological services

needed to dilute air and water Item Acceptable R2 of S1 R2 of S2 R2 of S3
pollutants concentrationa (seJ) (seJ) (seJ)

Air pollutants μg/m3

Dust 80 1.23E+15 6.65E+15
SO2 20 2.76E+17
NOx 50 8.90E+16
Pb 0.5 5.34E+16
Cd 0.005 2.05E+17
As 0.006 3.29E+17
Mercury 0.05 2.12E+15
Total ecological service needed by air 1.23E+15 3.29E+17
pollutants
Water pollutants mg/L
COD 15 3.96E+17 1.37E+17
NH3-N 0.15 1.61E+18 4.81E+17
Pb 0.01 2.91E+17 1.65E+19
Cd 0.001 4.82E+17 6.15E+17
As 0.05 3.87E+16 4.12E+16
Zn 0.05 2.04E+18 8.24E+17
Total ecological service needed by water 2.04E+18 1.65E+19
pollutants
Ecological service needed by dilution 2.04E+18 1.65E+19 3.29E+17
emissions

The first-grade concentration levels in the corresponding environmental quality standards were chosen as the
related pollutants’ acceptable concentrations
a
Data of the water pollutants’ acceptable concentrations came from Ministry of Environmental Protection of the
People’s Republic of China (2002). And, data of the air pollutants’ acceptable concentrations came from Ministry
of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (2012)
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 8 The emergy losses caused by air and water pollutants (seJ/year)

Item Damage category DALY/kg F2 of S1 F2 of S2 F2 of S3 Damage category of PDF/kg R3 of S1 R3 of S2 R3 of S3

of human health emissiona (seJ) (seJ) (seJ) ecosystem quality emissiona (seJ) (seJ) (seJ)

Air pollutants
Dust Respiratory 3.75E−04 8.04E+16 4.37E+17 – – –
Disorders
SO2 Respiratory 5.46E−05 6.59E+17 Acidification and 1.041 3.58E+17
Disorders eutrophication
NOx Respiratory 8.87E−05 8.63E+17 Acidification and 5.713 1.58E+18
Disorders eutrophication
Pb Carcinogenic 5.20E−03 3.03E+17 Ecotoxic emissions 2.54E+03 4.22E+18
effects
Cd Carcinogenic 1.35E−01 3.02E+17 Ecotoxic emissions 9.65E+03 6.15E+17
effects
As Carcinogenic 2.46E−02 1.06E+17 Ecotoxic emissions 5.92E+02 7.27E+16
effects
Mercury Ozone layer 8.29E+02 2.31E+17 Ecotoxic emissions 8.29E+02 5.46E+15
depletion
Water pollutants
COD – – – – – –
NH3-N – – – – – –
Pb – – – Ecotoxic emissions 7.39E+00 3.33E+13 1.89E+15
Cd Carcinogenic 7.12E−02 2.63E+16 3.36E+16 Ecotoxic emissions 4.80E+02 3.60E+14 4.59E+14
effects
As Carcinogenic 6.57E−02 1.05E+17 1.12E+17 Ecotoxic emissions 1.14E+01 3.41E+13 3.63E+13
effects
Zn – – – Ecotoxic emissions 1.63E+01 2.56E+15 1.04E+15
Total 2.12E+17 1.45E+17 2.90E+18 2.99E+15 3.43E+15 6.85E+18
emergy
loss
a
This parameter came from ref. Goedkoop and Spriensma (2000)

lead and zinc to the collection sites. Also, more financial in-
vestment on the related research and development activities
should be made so that more advanced recycling technologies
can be applied. In addition, an information platform should be
established so that the inventories on lead and zinc stocks can
be built up for future collection and recycling.
Finally, appropriate economic instruments should be taken.
The market prices of raw ore (about 12 US$/t), lead concen-
trate (about 1630 US$/t), and lead bullion (about 2170 US$/t)
provide the utility values based on willingness-to-pay princi-
ples. However, when the market prices are expressed in
emergy-based method by using Yunnan Province’s emergy-
to-money ratio of 5.96E+12seJ/$, the emergy equivalent
prices of the raw ore, lead concentrate, and lead bullion are
about 7.15E+13 seJ/t, 9.71E+15 seJ/t, and 1.29E+16 seJ/t,
respectively. These values are about two orders of magnitude
smaller than the UEVs of the products, indicating that the
market prices undervalue the real values of such metal prod-
ucts. The main reason is that market prices do not consider the
real contribution of local ecosystem and ignore the costs of
environmental externalities. For instance, the tailings of such
mining sites have long-term negative impacts on the local
ecosystem, such as soil and water contamination, land destruc-
tions, and mining wastes, which seriously threaten the local
environment. In order to address such an issue, a large amount
of money should be invested to restore the local ecosystem.
However, the current market prices have not included such
costs, leading to a great threat to local ecosystem health.
Therefore, an ecosystem compensation project should be ini-
tiated by internalizing environmental externalities so that ad-
equate funds can be obtained to restore the local ecosystem
functions. For example, the 1998 severe flood along the

Table 9 Values of emergy-based

negative impacts Items Ecosystem service loss Ecological service Emergy losses Total negative impacts

S1 5.07E+17 2.04E+18 2.15E+17 2.76E+18

S2 4.90E+17 1.65E+19 1.48E+17 1.71E+19
S3 1.57E+18 3.29E+17 9.75E+18 1.17E+19
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

13.48% 2.86%
2.82%
0.86%
18.36%
7.78%
73.86%
96.28%
S1
S2
S3
83.70%
Eological service Emergy loss Ecosystem service loss
Fig. 8 Negative impacts composition of the subsystems
Yangtze River induced China to implement the world’s largest
government-financed ecological restoration program, namely
the Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) and the
Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP), with a total
investment of more than US $50 billion (Ouyang et al.
2016). Similarly, such efforts should be made in this industry
so that ecological restoring activities can cover tailings repair,
mining wastes treatment and final disposals, soil and water
contamination, etc. (Cooke and Johnson 2002). In this regard,
emergy accounting can provide valuable implications so that
appropriate ecosystem compensation mechanism can be
established. Although the accounting results should not be
directly applied to set up compensation standards, they can
at least be applied as one useful reference.
Conclusions
Rapid economic development requires a large amount of
metals. However, the mining and processing of metals gener-
ate significant impacts on our natural ecosystem and public
health. To maximize the benefits of mineral resource exploi-
tation, it is crucial to improve current metal mining and cor-
responding processes by addressing economic, social, and
environmental considerations. However, traditional account-
ing methods on metal mining and processing cannot uncover
the real contribution of natural ecosystem and normally focus
on short-term financial returns, rather than long-term sustain-
able development. Under such a circumstance, this study pro-
poses a systematic resource accounting framework based on
emergy accounting. This framework quantifies the CO 2
emissions and negative impacts caused by mineral re-
source exploitation activities and proposes emergy-based
indicators to evaluate the comprehensive performance of
mineral resource exploitation and metal production. A
case study of one lead and zinc production system in
Yunnan Province of China was presented to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the proposed method and indicators.
Policy suggestions were raised to improve the overall sus-
tainability of the studied system. Such suggestions can
also be promoted to other places with similar challenges
by considering the local realities.
The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as
follows:
1. Natural resources (especially minerals) generate high eco-
nomic values. However, emergy-based accounting indi-
cates that the amount received in terms of money substan-
tially undervalues the environmental work associated with
the entire production process.
2. The studied mineral resource exploitation system has a
low sustainability due to its high dependence on nonre-
newable resources and the enormous pressure on local
ecosystems.
3. The beneficiation subsystem generates the highest nega-
tive impact per emergy output, followed by the smelting
and refining subsystem and the underground mining
subsystem.
4. The CO2 emissions of raw ore, ore concentrates, and lead
bullion were 2.81E+01 kg CO2-eq/t, 5.11E+02 kg CO2-
eq/t, and 1.79E+03 kg CO2-eq/t, respectively. Electricity
use dominated the total CO2 emission along the entire
production chain.
5. The UEVs of lead and zinc raw ore, ore concentrates, and
lead bullion were 8.60E+15 seJ/t, 1.87E+17 seJ/t, and
3.59E+17 seJ/t, respectively.

Table 10 Emergy-based indicators of the lead production systems and secondary lead production

Item PUEV (seJ/t) PCFI (kgCO2-eq/t) EYR INI (seJ/t) IELR IESI

S1 8.60E+15 (raw ore) 2.81E+01 9.34E+01 9.79E+13 6.82E+03 1.37E−02

S2 1.87E+17 (lead concentrates) 5.11E+02 1.00E+00 6.84E+14 3.83E+05 2.61E−06
S3 3.59E+17 (lead bullion) 1.79E+03 1.00E+00 1.09E+14 2.10E+06 4.75E−07
Secondary lead production 3.48E+15 6.88E+02a 1.00E+00 1.44E+14a 2.33E+03b 4.30E−04b
a
These data are recalculated from Tian et al. (2017), and PCFI of reverberatory of secondary lead production is adopted
b
These data are recalculated from Pan et al. (2019)
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Funding information This study is supported by the Natural Science
Foundation of China (71690241, 71810107001, 71325006, 71704104,),
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities through
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (16JCCS04), the Shanghai Municipal
Government (17XD1401800), and Yunnan Provincial Research
Academy of Environmental Science.
References
Ali SH, Giurco D, Arndt N, Nickless E, Brown G, Demetriades A, Durrheim
R, Enriquez MA, Kinnaird J, Littleboy A, Meinert LD, Oberhänsli R,
Salem J, Schodde R, Schneider G, Vidal O, Yakovleva N (2017)
Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource gover-
nance. Nature 543:367–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21359
Almeida CMVB, Madureira MA, Bonilla SH, Giannetti BF (2013)
Assessing the replacement of lead in solders: effects on resource
use and human health. J Clean Prod 47:457–464. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.002
Andri I, Lacarri B, Andri I (2017) The impact of renovation measures on
building environmental performance: an emergy approach. 162:
776–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.053
Bartelmus P (2014) Environmental-economic accounting: progress and
digression in the SEEA revisions. Rev Income Wealth 60:887–904.
https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12056
Bastianoni S, Campbell DE, Ridolfi R, Pulselli FM (2009) The solar
transformity of petroleum fuels. Ecol Model 220:40–50. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.09.003
Brandt-Williams SL (2002) Folio #4. (2nd Printing). Emergy of Florida
Agriculture. Handbook of emergy evaluation. A compendium of
data for emergy computation. Center for Environmental Policy,
University of Florida, Gainesville
Brown MT, Bardi E (2001) Emergy of ecosystems folio #3. Compend
Data Emergy Comput 94
Brown MT, Buranakarn V (2003) Emergy indices and ratios for sustain-
able material cycles and recycle options. Resour Conserv Recycl 38:
1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00093-9
Brown MT, Ulgiati S (2010) Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy
driving the geobiosphere: a review and refinement of the emergy
baseline. Ecol Model 221:2501–2508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2010.06.027
Brown MT, Ulgiati S (2016) Assessing the global environmental sources
driving the geobiosphere: a revised emergy baseline. Ecol Model
339:126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.03.017
Brown MT, Raugei M, Ulgiati S (2012) On boundaries and
Binvestments^ in emergy synthesis and LCA: a case study on ther-
mal vs. photovoltaic electricity. Ecol Indic 15:227–235. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.021
Campbell DE (1998) Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and
regional sustainability: an example using the state of Maine. In:
Environmental monitoring and assessment. pp. 531–569. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1006043721115
Campbell ET, Tilley DR (2014) Valuing ecosystem services from
Maryland forests using environmental accounting. Ecosyst Serv 7:
141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.10.003
Chen W, Liu W, Geng Y, Ohnishi S, Sun L, Han W, Tian X, Zhong S
(2016) Life cycle based emergy analysis on China’s cement produc-
tion. J Clean Prod 131:272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2016.05.036
Chen W, Zhong S, Geng Y, Chen Y, Cui X, Wu Q, Pan H, Wu R, Sun L,
Tian X (2017) Emergy based sustainability evaluation for Yunnan
Province, China. J Clean Prod 162:1388–1397. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.136
China Nonferrous Metals Industry Yearbook (2006–2017) Nonferrous
Metals Industry Press, Beijing (in Chinese)
Cohen MJ, Sweeney S, Brown MT (2007) Computing the unit emergy
value of crustal elements. Emergy Synth 4:16.1–16.12
Cooke JA, Johnson MS (2002) Ecological restoration of land with par-
ticular reference to the mining of metals and industrial minerals: a
review of theory and practice. Environ Rev 10:41–71. https://doi.
org/10.1139/a01-014
Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B,
Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton
P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem ser-
vices and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.
1038/387253a0
de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L,
Christie M, Crossman N, Ghermandi A, Hein L, Hussain S, Kumar
P, McVittie A, Portela R, Rodriguez LC, ten Brink P, van Beukering
P (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their
services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1:50–61. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005
De Vilbiss CD, Brown MT (2015) New method to compute the emergy of
crustal minerals. Ecol Model 315:108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolmodel.2015.04.007
Dewulf J, Boesch ME, De Meester B, Van Der Vorst G, Van Langenhove
HR, Hellweg S, Huijbregts MAJ (2007) Cumulative exergy extrac-
tion from the naural environment (CEENE): a comprahensive life
cycle impact assessment method for resource accounting. Environ
Sci Technol 41:8477–8483. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0711415
Du Z, Lin B (2018) Analysis of carbon emissions reduction of China’s
metallurgical industry. J Clean Prod 176:1177–1184. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.178
Gan Y, Griffin WM (2018) Analysis of life-cycle GHG emissions for iron
ore mining and processing in China—uncertainty and trends. Resour
Pol 58:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.03.015
Geng Y, Zhang P, Ulgiati S, Sarkis J (2010) Emergy analysis of an indus-
trial park: the case of Dalian. China Sci Total Environ 408:5273–
5283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.081
Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S, Zhang P (2013) Measuring China’s circular
economy. Science 339:1526–1527. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1227059
Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S (2016) Sustainability, well-being, and the cir-
cular economy in China and worldwide. Science 351(6278):73–76
Geng Y, Tian X, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S (2017) China-USA trade: indicators
for equitable and environmentally balanced resource exchange. Ecol
Econ 132:245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.008
Geng Y, Sarkis J, Bleischwizt R (2019) How to globalize the circular econo-
my. Nature 565:153–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00017-z
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000) The eco-indicator 99: a
DamageOriented method for life cycle impact assessment: method-
ology report. Pre. Consultans, Amersfoort
Hubacek K, Guan D, Barrett J, Wiedmann T (2009) Environmental im-
plications of urbanization and lifestyle change in China: ecological
and water footprints. J Clean Prod 17:1241–1248. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.011
Ingwersen WW (2011) Emergy as a life cycle impact assessment
Indicator: a gold mining case study. J Ind Ecol 15:550–567.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00333.x
IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
IPCC (2018) GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 °C. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC)
Jamali-Zghal N, Le Corre O, Lacarrière B (2014) Mineral resource as-
sessment: compliance between emergy and exergy respecting
Odum’s hierarchy concept. Ecol Model 272:208–219. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.09.017
Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Eisenmenger N, Erb KH, Haberl H, Fischer-
Kowalski M (2009) Growth in global materials use, GDP and pop-
ulation during the 20th century. Ecol Econ 68:2696–2705. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007

LiZ,DuH,XiaoY,GuoJ(2017)Carbonfootprintsoftwolargehydro-projects
in China: life-cycle assessment according to ISO/TS 14067. Renew
Energy 114:534–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.073
Liang Y, Yu B, Wang L (2019) Costs and benefits of renewable energy
development in China’s power industry. Renew Energy 131:700–
712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.079
Liu J, Diamond J (2008) Revolutionizing China’s environmental protec-
tion. Science (80-. ). 319:37–38. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1150416
Liu G, Yang Z (2018) Emergy theory and practice: ecological environ-
mental accounting and urban green management. Science press,
Beijing (in Chinese)
Liu G, Yang Z, Chen B, Ulgiati S (2014) Emergy-based dynamic mech-
anisms of urban development, resource consumption and environ-
mental impacts. Ecol Model 271:90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2013.08.014
MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis/millennium
ecosystem assessment. World Health 1134:25–60. https://doi.org/
10.1196/annals.1439.003
Meillaud F, Gay JB, Brown MT (2005) Evaluation of a building using the
emergy method. In: Solar Energy. pp. 204–212. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solener.2004.11.003
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic China
(2002) Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water
GB3838–2002.(in Chinese)
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic China
(2012) Ambient Air Quality Standard (GB3095–2012). (in Chinese)
National Bureau of Statistics of China (2016) China Statistical Yearbook
2015
NDRC (2011) Guildelines for provincal greenhouse gas inventories. (in
Chinese)
Norgate TE, Jahanshahi S, Rankin WJ (2007) Assessing the environmen-
tal impact of metal production processes. J Clean Prod 15:838–848.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.018
Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting. Emergy and environmental
decision making. John Wiley Sons, INC 370. https://doi.org/10.
1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Odum HT (2000) Folio #2 Emergy of global processes. Handb Emergy
Eval 1–40
Odum HT (2007) Environment, power and society for the twenty-first
century: the hierarchy of energy. Energy 432. https://doi.org/10.
7312/odum12886
Odum HT, Brown MT, Brandt-Williams S (2000) Handbook of emergy
evaluation folio #1: introduction and global budget. Univ. Florida,
Gainesv
Ouyang Z, Zheng H, Xiao Y, Polasky S, Liu J, Xu W, Wang Q, Zhang L,
Xiao Y, Rao E, Jiang L, Lu F, Wang X, Yang G, Gong S, Wu B,
Zeng Y, Yang W, Daily GC (2016) Improvements in ecosystem
services from investments in natural capital. Science (80-. ) 352:
1455–1459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2295
Pan H, Zhang X, Wang Y, Qi Y, Wu J, Lin L, Peng H, Qi H, Yu X, Zhang Y
(2016a) Emergy evaluation of an industrial park in Sichuan Province,
China: a modified emergy approach and its application. J Clean Prod
135:105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.102
Pan H, Zhang X, Wu J, Zhang Y, Lin L, Yang G, Deng S, Li L, Yu X, Qi
H, Peng H (2016b) Sustainability evaluation of a steel production
system in China based on emergy. J Clean Prod 112:1498–1509.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.019
Pan H, Geng Y, Jiang P, Dong H, Sun L, Wu R (2018) An emergy based
sustainability evaluation on a combined landfill and LFG power
generation system. Energy 143:310–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.10.144
View publication stats
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Pan H, Geng Y, Dong H, Ali M, Xiao S (2019) Sustainability evaluation
of secondary lead production from spent lead acid batteries
recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:13–22. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.012
Pulselli RM, Simoncini E, Pulselli FM, Bastianoni S (2007) Emergy
analysis of building manufacturing, maintenance and use: Em-
building indices to evaluate housing sustainability. Energy Build
39:620–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.10.004
Pulselli RM, Simoncini E, Ridolfi R, Bastianoni S (2008) Specific
emergy of cement and concrete: an energy-based appraisal of build-
ing materials and their transport. Ecol Indic 8:647–656. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.10.001
SEEA Central Framework (2012) System of environmental-economic
accounting: a central framework, White cover publication
Shan Y, Guan D, Zheng H, Ou J, Li Y, Meng J, Mi Z, Liu Z, Zhang Q
(2018) China CO2 emission accounts 1997-2015. Sci Data 5:1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.201
Shao S, Liu J, Geng Y, Miao Z, Yang Y (2016) Uncovering driving factors
of carbon emissions from China’s mining sector. Appl Energy 166:
220–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.047
Sun L, Zhang C, Li J, Zeng X (2016) Assessing the sustainability of lead
utilization in China. J Environ Manag 183:275–279. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.063
Tian X, Wu Y, Hou P, Liang S, Qu S, Xu M, Zuo T (2017) Environmental
impact and economic assessment of secondary lead production:
comparison of main spent lead-acid battery recycling processes in
China. J Clean Prod 144:142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2016.12.171
Ukidwe NU, Bakshi BR (2004) Thermodynamic accounting of ecosys-
tem contribution to economic sectors with application to 1992 U.S.
economy. Environ Sci Technol 38:4810–4827. https://doi.org/10.
1021/es035367t
Ulgiati S, Brown MT (2002) Quantifying the environmental support for
dilution and abatement of process emissions: the case of electricity
production. J Clean Prod 10:335–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0959-6526(01)00044-0
Wang L, Zhang J, Ni W (2005) Emergy evaluation of eco-Industrial Park
with power plant. Ecol Model 189:233–240. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.02.005
Yu X, Geng Y, Dong H, Fujita T, Liu Z (2016) Emergy-based sustain-
ability assessment on natural resource utilization in 30 Chinese prov-
inces. J Clean Prod 133:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2016.05.103
Zhang B, Chen B (2016) Sustainability accounting of a household biogas
project based on emergy. Appl Energy 194:819–831. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.141
Zhang X, Jiang W, Deng S, Peng K (2009) Emergy evaluation of the
sustainability of Chinese steel production during 1998-2004. J Clean
Prod 17:1030–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.014
Zhang X, Yang L, Li Y, Li H, Wang W, Ye B (2012) Impacts of lead/zinc
mining and smelting on the environment and human health in China.
Environ Monit Assess 184:2261–2273. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-011-2115-6
Zhang W, Yang J, Wu X, Hu Y, Yu W, Wang J, Dong J, Li M, Liang S, Hu
J, Kumar RV (2016) A critical review on secondary lead recycling
technology and its prospect. Renew Sust Energ Rev 61:108–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.046
Zhang X, Shen J, Wang Y, Qi Y, Liao W, Shui W, Li L, Qi H, Yu X (2017)
An environmental sustainability assessment of China’s cement in-
dustry based on emergy. Ecol Indic 72:452–458. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.046
Zhao Y, Wen Q, Ai J (2010) Ecosystem service value of forests in Yunnan
province. For Res 23:184–190 (in Chinese)
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.