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

net/publication/271580703

Monitoring and evaluating the sustainability of Italian agricultural system. An

emergy decomposition analysis

Article  in  Ecological Modelling · January 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.02.014

CITATIONS READS

65 326

4 authors:

Patrizia Ghisellini Amalia Zucaro

Parthenope University of Naples ENEA
30 PUBLICATIONS   2,844 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   753 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Silvio Viglia Sergio Ulgiati

Parthenope University of Naples Parthenope University of Naples
36 PUBLICATIONS   473 CITATIONS    332 PUBLICATIONS   15,408 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Degree Thesis View project

Special Volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production titled: Cleaner production in developing and transition countries: What progress has been made and what are the
technical, economic, political and ethical gaps? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrizia Ghisellini on 28 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Modelling
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel

Monitoring and evaluating the sustainability of Italian agricultural system.

An emergy decomposition analysis
Patrizia Ghisellini a,∗ , Amalia Zucaro b , Silvio Viglia b , Sergio Ulgiati b
a
Department of Agri-food Science and Technology, University of Bologna, Italy
b
Department of Sciences for the Environment, Parthenope University of Napoli, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The agricultural sector is critical for the achievement of sustainable development worldwide. Its present
Available online 26 March 2013 and future sustainability relies on the difficult balance of food production and environmental impact. The
need for resource use optimization and increasing reliance on renewable energy, calls for increased devel-
Keywords: opment and integration of its supporting, provisioning, regulating and social services (multifunctionality)
Sustainable agriculture worldwide, in agreement with the global framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the Euro-
Emergy
pean Union Objectives and other international assessment studies (e.g. the United Nations International
Decomposition analysis
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development).
Italian agriculture
The performance of the Italian agricultural system is monitored and evaluated in this paper by means of
the emergy accounting method coupled to decomposition analysis techniques, applied to a 25 year time
series (1985–2010). The aim of this study is to assess the sustainability of these systems over time as well
as to identify the major drivers of performance change, to serve as the basis for future policy scenarios.
Two Italian regional agricultural systems (Emilia Romagna, in Northern Italy, and Campania, in Southern
Italy) are selected as case studies representative of the Italian agriculture. Results show a steady decrease
of cropped land, an increase of the fraction of renewable resource use, an overall increase of sustainability
(expressed by emergy indicators) in both regions. The fraction of renewable emergy use increased from
14% to 21% in the Emilia Romagna region and from 23% to 27% in the Campania region, compared to the
year 1985, with oscillating behavior over time. The overall Emergy Sustainability Index increased from
14% to 16% in the Emilia Romagna region and from 15% to 19% in the Campania region, recently. The
results of decomposition analysis highlight the important role of land use change and labor productivity
as major drivers of total emergy use in both agricultural systems. The approach applied in this paper is
applicable to the study of other national and regional agricultural sectors wordwide, provided suitable
time series of input and output flows are available.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Sustainable development principles introduced by the Brunt-
land Report (UNWCED, 1987) pointed out the importance of a
sustainable and equitable use of natural resources within and
among generations at global level. Agricultural ecosystems are
the biggest managed ecosystems worldwide covering about 13
billion hectares (FAO, 2007), with important consequences on
economic, social and environmental dynamics (Pettenella and
Ciccarese, 2010; Gomiero et al., 2011; Tilman et al., 2011). More-
over the environmental impacts, to which agriculture contributes,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 3335794792.
E-mail addresses: patrizia.ghisellini@alice.it, patrizia.ghisellini@unibo.it
(P. Ghisellini), amalia.zucaro@uniparthenope.it (A. Zucaro),
silvio.viglia@uniparthenope.it (S. Viglia), sergio.ulgiati@uniparthenope.it
(S. Ulgiati).
in turn affect its food function (Gomiero et al., 2008) calling for
an urgent optimization of the trade-off between food security and
environmental and social protection (Godfray et al., 2010; Tilman
et al., 2011). The performance of the agricultural sector is cru-
cial to the achievement of sustainable development and wellbeing
worldwide (Bezlepkina et al., 2010), by promoting sustainable and
equitable use of natural resources for all generations (UNWCED,
1987). According to the United States Department of Agriculture
(1999), sustainable agriculture should “over the long term, satisfy
human needs, enhance environmental quality and natural resource
base, make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and
integrate natural biological processes, sustain economic viability,
and enhance quality of life”. Because of the unsustainable and
asymmetric use of energy, minerals and environmental resources
(IAASTD, 2008), it is presently difficult to consider modern agricul-
ture as a sustainable way to satisfy human needs (Saifi and Drake,
2008). The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) rural development
program 2007–2013 (European Commission, 2005), implemented

0304-3800/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.02.014
 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
Nomenclature
R locally renewable emergy flows
N locally nonrenewable or slow-renewable emergy
flows
F emergy flows imported from outside (purchased) or
supplied as feedback
L labor directly applied to the process (hours, con-
verted to their emergy units). In this study, the term
labor is also used in the decomposition equations
to refer to all hours applied directly and indirectly
(labor + services) to support the agricultural produc-
tion.
S services: Indirect labor applied to the upstream pro-
cesses that extract, refine and deliver goods to the
investigated process. In general, services are quan-
tified in terms of economic cost of indirect labor (D ,
$), converted to emergy units (seJ)
U total emergy supporting the process or system
under investigation. Sometimes referred to as “total
emergy used”.
seJ solar equivalent Joule: unit used to quantify emergy
flows
EYR = U/F = (R + N + F + L + S)/F emergy yield ratio
ELR = (N + F + L + S)/R environmental loading ratio
ESI = EYR/ELR Emergy Sustainability Index
ED empower density: emergy investment per unit of
time and per unit of area (seJ s−1 ha−1 )
%REN = R/U fraction of emergy use that is renewable
EIR = F/(R + N) emergy investment ratio
UEV = U/output unit emergy value. Generic expression of
emergy investment per unit of product of reference
flow (seJ g−1 ; seJ D −1 , etc.). When the product is
measured in energy units (J), the UEV is more fre-
quently termed transformity (seJ J−1 )
GPV Gross Production Value
Y yield. A measure (gram, Joule, kwh, D , etc.) of the
process product
AA area of agricultural land cropped
POP total resident population of the investigated regions,
to be fed by the agricultural products of regional
agriculture
by the Regions of the European Union Member States,1 promotes
the production of renewable energies as well as other interventions
(such as conservative and restoration soil measures, conversion of
arable land to pastureland, and afforestation) by means of regional
measures, based on the rationale that agriculture is crucial for the
achievement of energy and climate-change objectives (Frascarelli,
2011; Manna, 2012).
In this work we have investigated the environmental and socio-
economic sustainability of the agricultural systems of two Italian
regions, Emilia Romagna in the Northern Italy, and Campania, in
the South. These regional systems are characterized by different
trends of climate, soil structure, mix of crops produced, agricul-
tural practices (intensive, integrated, organic, biodynamic, etc.) that
affect production results and translate into different values of the
indicators (emergy) and the drivers of change (decomposition).
1
Campania (2011). Regional Rural Development Plan 2007/2013. Midterm
Evaluation. Non-technical summary (march 2011), Available from: http://www.
agricoltura.regione.campania.it/psr 2007 2013/monitoraggio/midterm eva 2010.
pdf.
133
Due to these characteristics, these regional systems are represen-
tative of the variety of agricultural production patterns in Italy.
The coexistence of different agricultural systems (northern versus
southern, coastal versus inland, mountain versus plain, intensive
versus subsistence, etc.) is frequent in many countries, so that
an evaluation approach capable to appreciate diversity and com-
plexity would be a suitable tool for assessment and comparison
worldwide.
The case study was performed by means of the emergy account-
ing method (Odum, 1996; Brown and Ulgiati, 2004b,c) coupled with
a decomposition analysis technique (Vehmas, 2009). The latter was
applied to a calculated time series of emergy indices and ratios in
order not only to compare the two regional agricultural systems on
the basis of their emergy performances, but also with the purpose
to ascertain which factors, in the investigated period, directly and
indirectly affected the changes in imported (F) and non-renewable
emergy use (N) and the increase of total emergy use (U). The choice
of these indicators for the decomposition test was determined by
the fact that they largely characterize the sustainability of an agri-
cultural system.
2. Material and methods
2.1. The investigated regional agricultural systems
The agricultural sectors of Emilia Romagna and Campania
regions were investigated over the time period 1985–2010. The
Emilia Romagna region is situated in the central-northern part
of Italy while Campania is located in the southern part. Fig. 1a
and b highlights the large fraction of agricultural area as well
as a non-negligible fraction of forested and natural environment.
Both regions are characterized by a mixed hilly and plain phys-
ical environment. They have a long lasting agricultural tradition
characterized by high quality production of cereals such as soft
and durum wheat (Fanfani, 2001; Felice, 2011). A large fraction
of the cropped areas in both Regions is dedicated to the cultiva-
tion of forage for livestock consumption. Emilia Romagna is also
specialized in the cultivation of sugar beet, vineyard, peaches, nec-
tarines and pears, while Campania excels in the production of olive,
lemons, oranges, tomatoes and vineyard. Both Regions also have an
important agro-food industry, the products of which are exported
worldwide.2
The agricultural productive structure of the Emilia Romagna
region consists of farms characterized by an average size of 14.6 ha,
while the average farm size in the Campania region is about 4.0 ha.
In both Regions the average size is increasing over time because of
the gradual expulsion of farmers from business due to the effects
of European agricultural policies and market competition that lead
to concentration of land into larger farms.3
Nowadays intensive agriculture is the dominant productive
farming pattern applied in the two Regions. Alternative produc-
tive farming systems such as organic and biodynamic, integrated
pest management, account respectively for the 6.8% and 11.7% of
Emilia Romagna cropped land, while it is 4.2% of total land in Cam-
pania. These alternative farming patterns are receiving increasing
attention and financial support within the framework of rural
development policies.
2
Emilia Romagna (2011) Regional Rural Development Plan 2007/2013. Midterm
Evaluation. Non-technical summary (march 2011), Available from: http://www.
ermesagricoltura.it/Programmazione-Regionale-dello-Sviluppo-Rurale/Programma
-di-Sviluppo-rurale-2007-2013.
3
Agronotizie (2011), http://agronotizie.imagelinenetwork.com/attualita/2011/
07/07/istat-aziende-agricole-in-forte-calo-ma-piu-grandi/13643.
134 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148

Fig. 1. (a) Land cover map of Emilia Romagna Region (from Corinne Land Cover, 2006). (b) Land cover map of Campania Region (from Corinne Land Cover, 2006).

2.2. Data categories and quality
The main input and output flows related to the annual regional
crop production were collected from official statistical databases
and personal interviews to dealers, farmers and managers. The
output was quantified, for the purpose of the present assessment,
as dry mass (g), energy content (J) and economic value (D ; Gross
Production Value, GPV4 ) of the total regional sector. In so doing it
was possible to aggregate the products from a variety of crops into
a total amount assumed as reference flow. The renewable input
flows included in the account were solar radiation, wind, geother-
mal heat, rainfall, irrigation water, while the non-renewable flows
were diesel, electricity, nitrogen (N), phosphate (P2 O5 ) and potas-
sium (K2 O) fertilizers, pesticides (fungicides, insecticides and
acaricides, herbicides), agricultural machinery (tractors, cultiva-
tors, combine harvesters, self-loading-trailers, round balers, grape
harvesters, etc.) and human labor. The renewable input flows
data came from the National Agrometeorological Database, CRA-
CMA,5 the annual reports of National and Regional Institutes for

4
Gross Production Value, GPV, is expressed in current prices (D ). In the period
covered by the study the inflation rate has been rather constant. Since current
prices are usual in emergy analysis, current prices are used in this paper to make
5
comparison easier. CRA-CMA (2012) National Agrometeorologic Database. http://www.cra-cma.it/.
 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
Fig. 2. System diagram for the agricultural systems in Emilia Romagna and Campania Regions. The spatial boundary chosen is the total cropped land while the time boundary
was one year.
Environmental Protection and Research ISPRA6 and the National
Environmental Agency ARPA.7 Data about fertilizers pesticides
and human labor (number of workers employed in agriculture
and annual working hours) were taken from annual handbooks
of the National Institute of Statistics, ISTAT8 while data on
fuels and machinery are available from the regional database of
Mechanization in Agriculture, U.M.A.9 Finally, data on residential
population in both regions were taken from ISTAT historical time
series.10
With regard to the output flows, the regional data of the annual
crop production (wet matter) have been processed to yield the dry
mass and the energy content of each crop, based on average energy
content values from the database of the Italian National Institute
for Research in Food and Nutrition, INRAN.11 The economic value
of annual crop production is accounted for as their Gross Produc-
tion Value (GPV), calculated by the National Institute of Statistics,
ISTAT.12
2.3. Emergy and emergy-based indicators
Emergy is defined as “the total amount of available energy (exergy)
of one kind (usually solar) that is directly or indirectly required to make
6
ISPRA (2012) Annual reports on climatic indicators in Italy (years 2005
and 2010), Available from: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/stato-
dellambiente/gli-indicatori-del-clima-in-italia-nel-2010-anno.
7
ARPA (2012), Hydrological Annals Report, http://www.arpa.emr.it/documenti.
asp?parolachiave=sim annali&cerca=si&idlivello=64&pag=2.
8
ISTAT, Agricultural statistics, Available from: http://agri.istat.it.
9
UMA (2012), Utenti Motori Agricoli, Available from: http://www.ucer.camcom.
it/studi-ricerche/banche-dati/bd/agricolt/uma.
10
ISTAT, Residential population in Emilia Romagna Region and Campania Region,
http://seriestoriche.istat.it/index.php?id=7&user 100ind pi1[id pagina]=44
&cHash=b58adf960212bedd42e9fa9d2f2765a7.
11
INRAN (2012), National institute for Research in Food and Nutrition, nutritional
tables, Available from: http://www.inran.it/646/tabelle di composizione degli
alimenti.html.
12
ISTAT (2012a,b,c), Gross Production Value (GVP), Available from: http://www.
istat.it/it/archivio/1654.
135
a given product or to support a given flow” (Odum, 1996). The emergy
concept of embodiment supports the idea that something has a
value according to what was invested into making it. This way of
accounting for required inputs over a hierarchy of levels is defined
a “donor system of value”, while exergy and economic analyses are
“receiver systems of value”, i.e. something has a value according to
its usefulness to the end user (or user’s preferences). Solar emergy
was therefore suggested as a measure of the total environmental
support to all kinds of processes in the biosphere. Flows that are not
from solar source (like deep heat and gravitational potential) are
expressed as solar equivalents by means of suitable transformation
coefficients (Odum, 1996).
The amount of input emergy of the solar kind invested per ref-
erence (or functional) unit is named UEV (unit emergy value) and
measured as solar equivalent Joule per unit (seJ/J; seJ/g; seJ/ha;
seJ/h; seJ/D ). Input and output flows related to the regional agri-
cultural sectors and relevant for the emergy assessment are usually
classified as locally available renewable and non-renewable flows,
imported flows (services flows), economic flows. The Emergy dia-
gram (Fig. 2) of regional agricultural systems shows the main
components as well as the main driving and product flows. The
emergy method takes into account not only the free environmen-
tal flows provided by Nature, but also the time needed for resource
generation within biosphere processes as well as the economic
flows of labor and services, to be considered measures of the soci-
etal infrastructures supporting the process. In so doing all aspects
of sustainability (economic, social, environmental) are properly
accounted for.
A computational table is designed, in order to group input flows
according to their characteristics and to allow their conversion from
conventional units (energy and exergy, J; mass, g; labor or ser-
vices, US$, D or other currency) into emergy units (seJ). Such table
represents the numerical version of the emergy Eq. (1):

Em = fi × UEVi i = 1, . . . , n (1)
where
136 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
Em , solar emergy
fi , ith input flow of matter or energy
UEVi , unit emergy value of the ith flow (from literature or calcu-
lated in this work).
Summing up the emergies of all input flows we can calculate the
total emergy, U, invested into the process, i.e. the total biosphere
work for (and environmental support to) crop production.13 A set
of indices and ratios suitable for policymaking (Ulgiati et al., 1995;
Ulgiati and Brown, 1998; Brown and Ulgiati, 1999, 2004b,c) can also
be calculated:
(1) Total emergy use, U = R + N + F. It measures the renewable (R),
nonrenewable (N) and imported (F) emergy that converge to
produce the yield (Y).
(2) UEV = U/output. It measures how much emergy it takes to gen-
erate one unit of output, regardless of whether the input is
renewable or not. According to the way it is defined and calcu-
lated, the UEV measures the global conversion efficiency over
the whole chain of processes leading from primary resources to
the final product.
(3) Emergy yield ratio, EYR = (R + N + F)/F. It is a measure of the
ability of a process to exploit and make available locally renew-
able (R) and nonrenewable (N) resources by investing outside
resources (F). It is an index sensitive to the alternative local-
imported.
(4) Environmental loading ratio, ELR = (N + F)/R. It compares the
amount of nonrenewable (N) and imported (F) emergy to the
amount of locally renewable emergy sources (R). In a way, the
ELR is a measure of the possible disturbance to the local envi-
ronmental dynamics, generated by the development driven
from outside sources. The ELR is clearly able to make a dif-
ference between nonrenewable and renewable resources, thus
complementing the information that is provided by the UEV.
(5) Emergy investment ratio, EIR = F/(R + N). It is a measure of the
effectiveness of an investment to drive a local development.
The same resource investment, depending on the process that
is implemented, may make possible the exploitation of different
amounts of local resources.
(6) Renewable Fraction of emergy use, %REN = R/U, the fraction of
emergy use that is from local renewable sources. The ELR is
linked to the %R, through the equation:
R 1 1 cultural systems were investigated by Ulgiati et al. (1993, Italian
%REN = = =
(R + N + F) [(R + N + F)/R] [1 + (N + F)/R]
1 (2011, Scotland), Zucaro et al. (2011, Italy), Gasparatos (2011,
= (2)
(1 + ELR)
(7) Emergy Sustainability Index, ESI = EYR/ELR. It is an aggregated
indicator of sustainability that links the characteristics of the
EYR (sensitive to the outside-versus-local emergy alternative)
and the ELR (sensitive to the nonrenewable-versus-renewable
emergy alternative). It responds to the goal of relying on the
13
Prior to 2000, the annual emergy driving the geobiosphere was calculated as
9.44E+24 seJ/yr (Odum, 1996) as the sum of solar radiation, deep heat and tidal
momentum (calculated as solar-equivalent amounts). Odum et al. (2000) recalcu-
lated the total emergy baseline as 15.83E+24 seJ/yr in order to include the co-action
of solar, gravitational and geothermal sources. Previously calculated UEV values
must be multiplied by 1.68 (the ratio of 15.83/9.44) for conversion to the new base-
line. Brown and Ulgiati (2011) refined the calculation to 15.2E+24 seJ/yr, based on
updated values and conversion of energy to exergy units. The emergy baseline is
the reference for all main biosphere-scale processes, the UEV of which are calcu-
lated also under the assumption to put the UEV of solar radiation equal to 1 seJ/J. All
other UEVs of human-dominated processes are calculated accordingly, as ratios of
the needed emergy input flows to the output flow(s). In this paper we refer to the
Odum et al. (2000) baseline (all previous data converted accordingly).
largest possible amount of local resources in a process at the
lowest possible environmental loading.
Tables 1 and 2 provide examples of the calculation procedure. In
Table 1 (Emilia Romagna region), the emergy supporting labor and
services was divided into its renewable and nonrenewable frac-
tions, in order to understand how renewable labor and services
could be considered. Since results show that they only account for a
negligible share of renewable inputs, this splitting was not included
in Table 2 (Campania).
2.4. Previous emergy studies about agricultural systems
Given the importance of agriculture for human society, agri-
cultural production has received huge attention by energy and
economic analysts. It is impossible here to list the large number
of energy, economic and LCA studies about specific agricultural
sectors or crop production. Most studies focused on energy and
economic costs of specific production or entire sectors or conver-
sion of agricultural products into chemicals and biofuels. Focus on
improvement options was also placed by many analysts (mecha-
nization versus labor; chemically fertilized versus biological; GMOs
versus traditional; etc.). These studies generally only took fossil
energy costs into account, directly as fuel used or indirectly as
fuel embodied in the production of agricultural goods and machin-
ery. Resources not directly linked to fossil fuel use were generally
ignored.
Since the emergy method was introduced by H.T. Odum, several
emergy-based studies on agriculture have been published, aimed at
ascertaining the environmental support provided for free by nature
to the agricultural process as well as to the upstream processes
delivering needed goods and materials. In so doing, free energy of
sun, chemical energy of rain, environmental services by the wind,
nutrients in topsoil, ground-water, time embodied in resource gen-
eration, societal support to labor and services, were also accounted
for, in order to point out the large role played by the biosphere work
in support of the economic value of agricultural production.
The first recorded emergy study of agriculture is Odum’s (1984)
paper about the environmental role of agriculture, in which the
basic concepts of biosphere work in support of agriculture as well
as optimization concepts versus maximization concepts were dealt
with as basic sustainability aspects to be addressed. National agri-
agriculture), Lan et al. (1998, China), Pillet et al. (2007, Switzerland),
Chen et al. (2006, China), Burgess (2011, Scotland), Viglia et al.
Japan), among others. Regional agricultural systems characterized
by homogeneous climatic and orographic features were also inves-
tigated by An et al. (1998, Taihu Lake area, China), Rodrigues
et al. (2003, slash and burn Northeastern Parà, Brazil), Ferreyra
(2006, Rolling Pampas, Argentina), Lee and Huang (2011, Taoyuan
area, Taiwan), Agostinho et al. (2011, Mogi-Guacu watershed,
Brazil). Most emergy studies focused on specific cropping sys-
tems: Lagerberg and Brown (1999, tomatoes in Sweden), Ortega
et al. (2003, soybeans in Brazil), Guillén Trujillo (2003, coffee and
sugar cane in Chiapas, Mexico), Lefroy and Rydberg (2003, fodder
in Southwestern Australia), Cuadra and Rydberg (2006, coffee in
Nicaragua), de Barros et al. (2009, banana in Guadeloupe), Cavalett
and Ortega (2009, biodiesel from soybeans, Brazil), Francescatto
et al. (2009, apple in Southern Brazil), Goncalves Pereira and Ortega
(2009, bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil), Giannetti et al. (2011,
coffee in Brazilian savannah). Finally, a very important group of
papers is made up with methodological studies about the use of
emergy for the assessment of ecosystem services, implementation
of systems approach in the agricultural analysis, and emergy-based
decision support: Brandt-Williams and Pillet (2003), Doherty and
 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148 137

Table 1
Emergy evaluation of Emilia Romagna agriculture in 2010.

Items Units Raw UEV Refs for UEVs Emerg (seJ/yr)y % of Total % of Total
amount (seJ/unit) emergya emergyb

Renewable input (locally available)

Sun J/yr 4.25E+19 1 [a] 4.25E+19 1% 1%
Wind (kinetic energy of wind used at the surface) J/yr 1.08E+17 2.51E+03 [b] 2.71E+20 3% 6%
Rainfall (chemical potential) J/yr 2.64E+16 3.05E+04 [b] 8.06E+20 10% 18%
Deep Heat (Geothermal) J/yr 1.52E+16 1.20E+04 [b] 1.83E+20 2% 4%
Services, renewable fraction D /yr 5.19E+07 2.75E+12 [h] 1.43E+20 2%
Labor, renewable fraction D /yr 3.37E+07 2.75E+12 [h] 9.27E+19 1%
Nonrenewable input (locally available)
Top soil (erosion, weathering) J/yr 2.31E+14 1.24E+05 [b] 2.85E+19 0% 1%
Imported input
Gasoline J/yr 4.71E+13 1.11E+05 [b] 5.22E+18 0% 0%
Diesel J/yr 8.85E+15 1.11E+05 [b] 9.79E+20 12% 22%
Electricity J/yr 1.93E+15 2.81E+05 [c] 5.41E+20 6% 12%
Water for irrigation g/yr 1.28E+15 7.61E+05 [d] 9.73E+20 12% 22%
Fertilizers
Nitrogen (N) g/yr 6.20E+10 6.37E+09 [b] 3.95E+20 5% 9%
Phosphate (P2 O5 ) g/yr 4.25E+10 6.54E+09 [b] 2.78E+20 3% 6%
Potassium (K2 O) g/yr 2.07E+10 1.84E+09 [b] 3.82E+19 0% 1%
Fungicides g/yr 5.03E+09 5.08E+09 [e] 2.56E+19 0% 1%
Insecticides and acaricides g/yr 1.57E+09 4.81E+09 [e] 7.57E+18 0% 0%
Herbicides g/yr 1.52E+09 8.25E+09 [e] 1.25E+19 0% 0%
Machinery
Steel and iron g/yr 2.34E+10 5.31E+09 [f] 1.24E+20 1% 3%
Aluminum g/yr 3.99E+09 3.25E+10 [b] 1.30E+20 2% 3%
Rubber and plastic material g/yr 2.85E+08 3.69E+09 [g] 1.05E+18 0% 0%
Copper g/yr 8.54E+08 3.36E+09 [c] 2.87E+18 0% 0%
Seeds g/yr 6.47E+10 1.67E+09 [i] 1.08E+20 1% 2%
Labor, non-renewable fraction D /yr 5.28E+08 2.75E+12 [h] 1.45E+21 17%
Services, non-renewable fraction D /yr 8.13E+08 2.75E+12 [h] 2.24E+21 27%

Total emergy (with labor and services) 8.38E+21 100% 100%

Total emergy (without labor and services) 4.45E+21
a
Calculated with reference to total emergy U, including labor and services.
b
Calculated with reference to total emergy U, without inclusion of labor and services.

Table 2
Emergy evaluation of Campania agriculture in 2010.

Items Units Raw UEV (seJ/unit) Refs. UEV Emergy (seJ/yr) % of Total % of Total
amount emergya emergyb

Renewable input (locally available)

Sun J/yr 3.05E+19 1.00E+00 [a] 3.05E+19 1% 2%
Wind J/yr 6.08E+16 2.51E+03 [b] 1.52E+20 3% 8%
Rainfall J/yr 1.88E+16 3.05E+04 [b] 5.72E+20 12% 30%
Deep heat J/yr 8.46E+15 1.20E+04 [b] 1.01E+20 2% 5%
Photosynthesis related inputs (CO2 and H2 O)
CO2 used in photosynthesis g CO2 /yr 7.15E+12 n.a.
H2O used in photosynthesis g H2 O/yr 2.93E+12 n.a.
Nonrenewable input (locally available)
Top soil (erosion, wheathering) J/yr 8.59E+14 1.24E+05 [b] 1.06E+20 2% 6%
Imported input
Gasoline J/yr 0.00E+00 1.11E+05 [b] 0.00E+00 0% 0%
Diesel and heavy fuel J/yr 4.08E+15 1.11E+05 [b] 4.51E+20 9% 24%
Electricity J/yr 9.77E+14 2.81E+05 [c] 2.74E+20 6% 14%
Water for irrigation g/yr 9.37E+13 7.61E+05 [d] 7.13E+19 1% 4%
Fertilizers
Nitrogen (N) g/yr 4.44E+10 6.37E+09 [b] 2.83E+20 6% 15%
Phosphate (PO4) g/yr 5.61E+09 6.54E+09 [b] 3.66E+19 1% 2%
Potassium (K2O) g/yr 6.22E+08 1.84E+09 [b] 1.15E+18 0% 0%
Fungicides g/yr 3.61E+09 5.08E+09 [e] 1.84E+19 0% 1%
Insecticides and Acaricides g/yr 2.01E+09 4.81E+09 [e] 9.65E+18 0% 1%
Herbicides g/yr 1.09E+09 8.25E+09 [e] 9.02E+18 0% 0%
Agricultural machinery
Steel and iron g/yr 6.77E+09 5.31E+09 [f] 3.59E+19 1% 2%
Aluminum g/yr 1.16E+09 3.25E+10 [b] 3.76E+19 1% 2%
Rubber and plastic material g/yr 8.25E+07 3.69E+09 [g] 3.04E+17 0% 0%
Copper g/yr 2.48E+08 3.36E+09 [c] 8.32E+17 0% 0%
Human labor D /yr 6.43E+08 2.75E+12 [h] 1.77E+21 37%
Services D /yr 4.10E+08 2.75E+12 [h] 1.13E+21 23%

Total emergy with labor and servicesa 4.80E+21 100% 100%

Total emergy without labor and servicesa 1.91E+21
a
Calculated with reference to total emergy U, including labor and services.
b
Calculated with reference to total emergy U, without inclusion of labor and services.
138 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
Fig. 3. Cropped land (ha/year) in Emilia Romagna and Campania agricultural systems in the investigated period.
Rydberg (2002), Rydberg and Jansen (2002), Martin et al. (2006),
Rydberg et al. (2007), Beerman (2007), among others. This large
number of studies set the stage for the standardization of the
emergy method in the evaluation of agricultural systems, providing
a set of benchmark values of flows and indicators to compare with
future studies in other parts of the world and, more than that, to
highlight the important role of environmental services and natural
capital stocks in agricultural functions, most often disregarded in
conventional energy and economic studies.
However, most of the above emergy studies do not offer suf-
ficient time-series perspective and only limit to comparison of
systems and individual performance of specific farms, sectors or
regions. Crucial in any evaluation is the evolution over time of a
productive system or sector, in order to understand the past driving
forces and be able to learn from past lessons for future policy mak-
ing. The present paper aims at filling, at least partially, the identified
gap of time-series information.
2.5. Decomposition analysis
The decomposition analysis is widely used to investigate the
impact of policies that address or regulate energy use (Ang and
Zhang, 2000; European Commission, 2003; Ang, 2004; Jungnitz,
2008; Reddy and Ray, 2010; Sheinbaum-Pardo et al., 2012), mate-
rial consumption (Hoffrén et al., 2000; Hoffrén and Luukkanen,
2001; Jungnitz, 2008) and CO2 emissions (Cialani, 2007; Jungnitz,
2008; Reddy and Ray, 2010; Sheinbaum-Pardo et al., 2012), as well
as consequences of and linkages to societal phenomena such as
population increase, aging, land use. Since the decomposition anal-
ysis is able to assess the ability of a given parameter or use change
or policy to affect the final result, it can considered a very important
tool to ease the monitoring and evaluation of the sustainability of
whole economies and productive structures (Hoffrén et al., 2000).
The knowledge of the factors that affect the process performance is
essential for the design of new policy instruments and the evalua-
tion of the implemented measures (Jungnitz, 2008) over a desired
sustainability pattern.
The decomposition analysis carried out in this study is an Index
Decomposition Analysis (Ang, 2004), based on the Advanced Sus-
tainability Analysis (ASA) tool (Luukkanen and Malaska, 2001;
Malaska and Luukkanen, 2001; DECOIN, 2008; Vehmas, 2009;
SMILE, 2011). ASA is a mathematical and software data processing
system developed by Finland Futures Research Center, designed to
point out relationships between changes in environmental, eco-
nomic and social variables that are measured by any preferred
indicator or index. According with the ASA method, the decomposi-
tion analysis calculates the effect/contribution of each “explaining”
factor and their “joint impact”, which in a complete decomposition
must be allocated to the explaining factors.
An equation for describing the relationship between the factors
(intensive factor V/X1 and extensive factor X1 ) contributing to a
variable V can be expressed in its simplest form as follows (Eq. (3)):
V
V= X1 (3)
X1
This kind of analysis can be applied to multiple explaining fac-
tors as well. The two-factor decomposition presented in Eq. (3) can
be expanded by taking the result from the first decomposition as a
starting point for further decompositions, and the new results can
then be decomposed again. The equation which identifies the con-
tributing variables can be formulated in a general form as follows
(Eq. (4)):
X1 X2 Xn−1
V= × × ... × × Xn (n ≥ 2) (4)
X2 X3 Xn
The pre-requisite for the application of the technique is the
availability of a suitable time series of data and performance indi-
cators. A more detailed explanation of the ASA approach and its
underlying mathematical procedures can be found in the cited lit-
erature.
3. Results
3.1. Input and output flows data characteristics
Our study only focuses on crop production (livestock and multi-
functional activities are not included). In 2010 the cropped land was
1.07 million hectares in Emilia Romagna and 0.5 million hectares
in Campania. Statistical data from Agricultural Census 2010 (ISTAT,
2010) show the gradual decrease of the cropped land over time in
both regions. In particular, from 1985 to 2010 the cropped land
decreased by 14% in Emilia Romagna and by 47% in Campania
(Fig. 3). The abandonment of rural areas and the land use change in
favor of urbanization, transport and industrial infrastructure have
common causes in all Italian Regions: decreasing farmers’ income,
population aging, reduction of the number of farms, lack of turnover
between generations, social and cultural aspects (WWF, 2012). In
some Regions, including Campania, rural activities have also been
affected by aggressive and sometimes illegal expansion of built
environment (Mazzeo, 2009; WWF, 2012).
This phenomenon has many implications, as it reduces the
capacity to satisfy the growing food demand, increases the vulner-
ability of the territories and reduces the future opportunities for
human activities and sustainable business (Rabboni, 2012).
Fig. 4a and b show a declining production trend in both regions
(much more evident in Campania), while instead the current
 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
Fig. 4. (a) Evolution of the mass of crop production (left axis) and economic value of crop production (GPV) (right axis) in Emilia Romagna region. (b) Evolution of the mass
of crop production (left axis) and economic value of crop production (GPV) (right axis) in Campania region.
price GPV increased up to the year 2000 and then stabilized with
small oscillations. The crop production of Emilia Romagna Region
declines from the 14.6 million of d.m. tons in the year 1985 and
the 13.2 million tons in the year 2010, while Campania Region pro-
duction decreases from the 5.3 million of d.m. tons in 1985 to 4.9
million of tons of 2010. In Emilia Romagna the production decrease
is the result of a constant and slightly oscillating decline of land
cropped with temporary forage, soft wheat and sugar beet. In 2010
compared to 1985, the sugar beet recorded the highest reductions
of its cropped land share (−73.6%), followed by barley (−53.3%),
soft wheat (−41.9%) and vineyard (−30.6%), while maize (+117.4%),
tomatoes (+81.9%) and durum wheat (+57.1%) show an increasing
trend. In Campania the reduction is mainly related to the decrease
of agricultural land (as mentioned above, from 1985 to 2010 such
decrease was 47%).
However, the total and per hectare yield in Emilia Romagna are
always much higher than for Campania (averaging respectively 2.6
and 1.6 times). This trade-off between intensification and yield is
exactly the problem that must be faced in policy-making, namely
a balance between environmental and economic sustainability.
Consistently with the characteristics of other industrialized
regions, the present contribution of the agricultural sector (Agri-
cultural Gross Domestic Product share) to the total regional Gross
Domestic Product (RGDP) is marginal (2.1% in 2009 in Emilia
Romagna and 2.2% in 2009 in Campania) compared to the indus-
try and service sectors. Furthermore, the traditional agricultural
activities (crops and livestock production) account for the high-
est contribution to the agricultural regional Gross Production
Value compared to the present contribution from multifunctional
activities (agritourism, energy production, handicraft products,
production of animal feed, etc.), the share of which in 2010
139
amounted to a low 10.3% for Emilia Romagna and 9.6% for Cam-
pania.
3.2. Emergy flows supporting the two agricultural systems of
Campania and Emilia Romagna
The main input flows supporting the two investigated agricul-
tural systems in the year 2010 are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Inputs are
divided into Renewable, Nonrenewable, Imported and Economic
categories. The economic category includes direct labor as well
as services (indirect labor performed outside the system bound-
ary to process and delivers the imported input resources). In both
regional agricultural systems human labor and services accounted
for about 50% of the total emergy flow, U, thus indicating a very
labor-intensive agro-industrial sector. Table 1 shows, in the first
three columns, the main input flows supporting the regional agri-
culture of Emilia Romagna in the year 2010. The third column
refers to the raw amounts of input collected (as indicated in Section
2.1); these raw amounts are multiplied by a suitable conversion
factor (UEV) indicated in the fourth column to yield the emergy
associated to each input flow. Economic flows of labor and ser-
vices (L&S) are also indicated and two emergy totals are drawn,
with and without inclusion of L&S. The relative (%) importance
of each flow compared to the total emergy used (with and with-
out L&S) was also calculated. Rainfall (9% and 21% with/without
L&S), agricultural diesel (9% and 21% with/without L&S), electricity
(5% and 12% with/without L&S), water for irrigation (9% and 21%
with/without L&S) and fertilizers (6% and 16% with/without L&S)
and Labor (22%) and Services (33%) gave the largest contributions
to the total emergy U. The dominance of services (33%) should not
be disregarded, since it indicates the dependence of the agricultural
140 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148

Table 3
Intensive and extensive indicators of Emilia Romagna agriculture over time.

Indicators Unit 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Intensive indicators with L&S

Emergy intensity per GPV seJ/D 4.36E+12 3.28E+12 3.43E+12 2.79E+12 3.30E+12 3.11E+12
Empower density seJ/ha 6.26E+15 6.50E+15 7.23E+15 6.55E+15 7.02E+15 7.98E+15
Emergy intensity per g d.m. seJ/g d.m. 5.47E+08 5.48E+08 5.93E+08 5.45E+08 6.20E+08 6.35E+08
Transformity seJ/J 3.36E+04 3.37E+04 3.64E+04 3.34E+04 3.79E+04 3.88E+04
EYR = U/(F + L + S) 1.15 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.15
EIR = 1/(EYR-1) 6.65 7.35 7.98 7.43 7.47 6.83
ELR = (N + F + L + S)/R 6.91 7.65 8.30 7.73 7.76 7.05
%REN = 1/(1 + ELR) 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12
ESI = EYR/ELR 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16
Intensive indicators without L&S
Emergy intensity per GPV seJ/D 2.39E+12 1.84E+12 1.87E+12 1.58E+12 1.89E+12 1.65E+12
Empower density seJ/ha 3.43E+15 3.65E+15 3.94E+15 3.72E+15 4.02E+15 4.24E+15
Emergy intensity per g d.m. seJ/g d.m. 3.00E+08 3.07E+08 3.23E+08 3.09E+08 3.55E+08 3.38E+08
Transformity seJ/J 1.84E+04 1.89E+04 1.98E+04 1.90E+04 2.17E+04 2.06E+04
EYR = U*/F 1.23 1.20 1.18 1.20 1.19 1.23
EIR = 1/(EYR-1) 4.29 5.00 5.48 5.12 5.20 4.34
ELR = (N + F)/R 4.52 5.28 5.79 5.40 5.47 4.53
%REN = 1/(1 + ELR) 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.18
ESI = EYR/ELR 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.27
Extensive indicators
Renewable inputs, R (without double seJ/yr 7.96E+20 7.21E+20 6.74E+20 6.79E+20 7.20E+20 8.06E+20
counting)
Renewable inputs, R (without double seJ/yr 1.01E+21 9.34E+20 9.04E+20 8.78E+20 9.29E+20 1.04E+21
counting, including Ren. fraction of L&S)
Locally nonrenewable inputs, N seJ/yr 3.48E+19 3.38E+19 3.16E+19 3.18E+19 3.15E+19 2.85E+19
Purchased inputs, F (without L&S) seJ/yr 3.57E+21 3.78E+21 3.87E+21 3.64E+21 3.91E+21 3.62E+21
Direct labor, L, non renewable seJ/yr 1.88E+21 1.89E+21 2.02E+21 1.54E+21 1.34E+21 1.45E+21
Services (non-ren. fraction) seJ/yr 1.52E+21 1.45E+21 1.58E+21 1.58E+21 1.92E+21 2.24E+21

Total emergy, U = (R + N + F + L + S) seJ/yr 8.01E+21 8.08E+21 8.40E+21 7.67E+21 8.14E+21 8.38E+21

Total emergy, U* = (R + N + F) seJ/yr 4.40E+21 4.53E+21 4.58E+21 4.35E+21 4.66E+21 4.45E+21

sector demand for resources on the performance and efficiency
of the upstream industrial and infrastructure sectors that supply
goods and opportunities to agriculture.
In a like manner, Table 2 lists the most relevant emergy
inputs supporting Campania agriculture. The main renewable,
imported and economic flows are respectively rainfall (13% and 27%
with/without L&S), agricultural diesel (11% and 23% with/without
L&S), electricity (7% and 14% with/without L&S) and fertilizers (8%
and 16% with/without L&S). Direct labor accounts for 22% and ser-
vices account for 28% of total emergy use in the region.
Tables 3 and 4 list the calculated values of the main emergy indi-
cators for the two agricultural systems. Indicators are grouped into
two categories, intensive and extensive, calculated with and with-
out including L&S. The total emergy (U) supporting the annual crop
production is relatively stable in both regions: in Emilia Romagna
U is about twice the value of Campania, in all years.
It is very telling to analyze the breakdown and the trends of raw
emergy flows. In order to be able to identify also the smaller flows
we did not include in the breakdown the emergy of human labor
and services (being very large flows, they hides the smaller inputs).
Moreover, Labor and Services are strictly correlated to the dynam-
ics of the societal economy (the emergy “cost” of labor depends
on the development level of a society) while instead we are also
interested in the differences of the agricultural production process
as such (i.e. trend of resource use, mix of crops, climate, soil qual-
ity, yield). Fig. 5a and b show the relative importance and time
trends of emergy inputs (aggregated into main categories) com-
pared to the total raw emergy use (=100%). We can see that for
both Emilia Romagna and Campania systems, renewables R have
not a high share of total emergy use U and show a declining trend,
except in the most recent years. The larger 2010 shares were Ser-
vices (respectively 28% and 24% in Emilia Romagna and Campania,
with an increasing trend) and Labor (18% in E.R. and 38% in Cam-
pania, gradually decreasing). Direct energy (fossil fuels) increase
until recently and then decline. Agrochemicals show a gradual
decline over time. Slow-renewables show a large share of emergy
use in Emilia Romagna, mainly due to underground and aqueduct
irrigation water, while slow-renewable topsoil erosion contributes
to this category of resources in Campania region.
3.3. Decomposition of total emergy U
The time changes of the amount of total emergy flow (U) were
decomposed to understand the main drivers of change, based on
data from Tables 3 and 4, by means of the Advanced Sustaina-
bility Analysis (ASA) approach described in Material and Methods.
According to Eq. (5), the change of total emergy U between the ref-
erence year To (beginning of the considered period, 1985) and the
end year T1 , can be decomposed into several driving component (or
contributing) factors:
U       AA   POP 
F (R + N)
U= ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
F (R + N) AA POP Labor
 Labor 
∗ ∗ GPV (5)
GPV
where (U/F) is the emergy yield ratio (EYR); F/(R + N) is the emergy
investment ratio (EIR); (R + N)/AA14 is the local empower density,
EDL (a measure of carrying capacity based on locally available
resources, renewable or not, seJ/ha), AA/POP15 is agricultural land
availability (hectares/person); POP/Labor is the people supported
by a unit of agricultural labor (people/working hour); GPV is the
Gross Production Value; Labor/GPV is time invested per unit of
agricultural economic product (working hours/D ).
Eq. (5) clearly shows U to be linearly dependent on GPV trend,
all other factors remaining the same. Instead, changes in the other
14
AA, agricultural area.
15
POP, residential population in the regions.
 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148 141

Table 4
Intensive and extensive indicators of Campania agriculture over time.

Indicators Unit 1985 1993 2002 2006 2010

Intensive indicators with L&S

Emergy intensity per GPV seJ/D 3.44E+12 2.72E+12 2.04E+12 2.31E+12 2.10E+12
Empower density seJ/ha 5.55E+15 6.30E+15 8.17E+15 8.51E+15 7.37E+15
Emergy intensity per g d.m. seJ/g d.m. 9.92E+08 9.00E+08 9.52E+08 1.01E+09 9.84E+08
Transformity seJ/J 6.22E+04 5.53E+04 5.89E+04 6.42E+04 5.86E+04
EYR = U/(F + L + S) 1.16 1.13 1.11 1.10 1.16
EIR = 1/(EYR-1) 6.42 7.92 9.46 10.25 6.08
ELR = (N + F + L + S)/R 7.37 9.14 10.74 11.68 7.39
%REN = 1/(1 + ELR) 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.12
ESI = EYR/ELR 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.16
Intensive indicators without L&S
Emergy intensity per GPV seJ/D 1.55E+12 1.22E+12 8.46E+11 9.27E+11 8.34E+11
Empower density seJ/ha 2.50E+15 2.83E+15 3.38E+15 3.41E+15 2.93E+15
Emergy intensity per g d.m. seJ/g d.m. 4.47E+08 4.05E+08 3.94E+08 4.04E+08 3.91E+08
Transformity seJ/J 2.80E+04 2.48E+04 2.44E+04 2.58E+04 2.33E+04
EYR = U*/F 1.43 1.33 1.30 1.28 1.55
EIR = 1/(EYR-1) 2.34 3.01 3.33 3.52 1.81
ELR = (N + F)/R 2.77 3.56 3.86 4.09 2.33
%REN = 1/(1 + ELR) 0.27 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.30
ESI = EYR/ELR 0.51 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.67
Extensive indicators
Locally renewable inputs, R seJ/yr 6.29E+20 4.61E+20 4.28E+20 4.05E+20 5.72E+20
Locally nonrenewable inputs, N seJ/yr 8.05E+19 6.29E+19 5.22E+19 5.11E+19 1.06E+20
Purchased inputs, F seJ/yr 1.66E+21 1.58E+21 1.60E+21 1.60E+21 1.23E+21
Direct labor, L, non renewable seJ/yr 2.05E+21 1.73E+21 2.07E+21 1.90E+21 1.77E+21
Indirect labor (services), non renewable seJ/yr 8.49E+20 8.43E+20 8.80E+20 1.17E+21 1.13E+21

Total emergy U = (R + N + F + L + S) seJ/yr 5.27E+21 4.67E+21 5.03E+21 5.13E+21 4.80E+21

Total emergy U* = (R + N + F) seJ/yr 2.37E+21 2.10E+21 2.08E+21 2.06E+21 1.91E+21

driving factors introduce non-linearity aspects that need to be care-
fully taken into account.
Tables 5 and 6 show the time evolution of flows characteriz-
ing the two regional agricultural systems and the percentage of
changes determined by each factor, relative to the year 1985.
Tables 5 and 6 are divided into three sections. In the first one,
the absolute values of selected parameters characterizing the sys-
tem over time are shown (emergy flows, cropped land, regional
population to be fed, working time applied, economic product).
Important, in this section, the total emergy U = (R + N + F + L + S): in
Emilia Romagna region U slightly increases over time (Table 5),
while instead it decreases in Campania region (Table 6), after some
oscillations in both regions. In the second section, selected per-
formance ratios are calculated. Finally, the third section shows
the percentage of positive or negative contribution of each per-
formance ratio to the value of total emergy use U in each year.
4. Discussion
It is very important, for an effective discussion, to remind the
theoretical basis of the emergy method. Emergy is not energy.
While the latter indicates the heat content of a source and its abil-
ity to raise 1 ◦ C the temperature of water, emergy indicates the
quality of a resource in terms of time and environmental work
invested by biosphere to make it, within a systems thermody-
namic framework and Lotka–Odum’s Maximum Power Principle
(Lotka, 1922a,b; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Odum, 1983). As a conse-
quence, emergy accounts for both energy and material sources as
well as for the time embodied in their generation, concentration,
provision. Consistently with the emergy definition, the renewable
emergy R does not only include the renewable energy flows that
are actually captured by means of energy devices (photovoltaic,
wind turbines, etc.), but also include all the typologies of renew-
able support to the regional agriculture (rainfall, wind, insolation
on cropped land), no matter they are converted into electricity
through technology or into crops, through photosynthesis. If more
renewables are converted to electricity, or agricultural residues are
converted to process heat or biofuel, the renewable fraction R does
not increase in absolute terms, but may contribute to replace fossil
power demand. This is likely to decrease the total emergy use (U),
in so affecting the entire set of percentages. Material and energy
efficiency and recycling patterns also contribute to decrease the
total demand U, thus improving the system’s performance and its
calculated indicators. This is why the two regional agricultures are
affected by both the mix of renewable and nonrenewable resources
as well as by improvements in intensity indicators over time.
4.1. Evaluation and trends of emergy indicators
The fraction of total emergy use that is renewable
(Tables 3 and 4) is an important aspect of sustainable agriculture.
In principle, agriculture is an activity based on photosynthesis,
that is solar energy driven. When the maximization of the yield
is achieved by means of exceeding amounts of non-renewable
resources, sustainability is no longer guaranteed. Unfortunately,
the use of renewable emergy in both regional agricultures is very
small (around 10–12% with L&S and 20–25% without L&S in the
two regions, although slightly increasing over time) and requires
urgent policy actions to improve this trend. It is important to note
that the %REN is more or less the same in the two regions when
L&S are accounted for, while it is higher for Campania than Emilia
Romagna without L&S. This indicates that more renewable raw
sources are used in Campania and that renewability levels off
when the resource-intensive societal dynamics comes into play
through the emergy cost of L&S, so that the agricultural sector
as a whole is characterized by the same low renewability as the
entire economy (Pereira et al., submitted for publication). Since
the emergy associated to L&S depends on the conversion of money
flows into emergy units by means of the national Emergy/GDP
ratio, L&S reflect the intensity of emergy use in the Italian economy,
in support of welfare and and infrastructures: the same amount
of labor (hours applied) would be supported by less emergy in a
developing country than in a highly industrialized economy. It is
crucial to be able to separate the basic emergy investments as raw
142 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148

Fig. 5. (a) Breakdown of emergy input to the Emilia Romagna agricultural system. (b) Breakdown of emergy input to the Campania agricultural system.

matter and energy flows from the societal emergy investment in
support to welfare and lifestyle. The emergy costs linked to direct
labor and services call for the performance of the entire society: if
supporting the welfare of agricultural workers as well as the other
workers involved in the upstream supply chain is so resource
intensive as to account for about 50% of total emergy costs of
agricultural products, this means that it is impossible to improve
the performance of the agricultural sector disregarding the need to
improve, at the same time, the performance of the economy (better
use of resources in the Italian society, in order to support the same
or even higher wellbeing with less inputs). Some analysts call for
degrowth patterns, others simply call for increased efficiency or
expect future technological improvements and cheaper resources
to be discovered. The biophysical perspective of the economy
from the emergy point of view was explored by Brown and Ulgiati
(2010) and cannot be dealt with further in this paper. However, the
existence of a strict relation between emergy and economic flows
in sectorial, regional and national performances helps understand
which fraction of a process performance relies on technical aspects
and which fraction instead relies on the socio-economic dynamics
of societies.
A land-based intensity of resource use is provided by the
empower density indicator (i.e. the intensity of the resource invest-
ment per hectare per year) (Fig. 6). Considering the decrease of
 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148 143

Table 5
Trends of characterizing flows and driving factors in Emilia Romagna agriculture 1985–2010, with reference to the year 1985.

Flows (units) 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

U (seJ/year) 8.01E+21 8.08E+21 8.40E+21 7.67E+21 8.14E+21 8.38E+21

F (seJ/year) 3.57E+21 3.78E+21 3.87E+21 3.64E+21 3.91E+21 3.62E+21
(R + N) (seJ/year) 8.31E+20 7.55E+20 7.06E+20 7.11E+20 7.52E+20 8.34E+20
AA (ha) 1.28E+06 1.24E+06 1.16E+06 1.17E+06 1.16E+06 1.05E+06
POP (resident population) 3.93E+06 3.90E+06 3.89E+06 3.95E+06 4.15E+06 4.38E+06
Labor (working hours/year) 1.43E+08 1.29E+08 9.77E+07 7.58E+07 6.07E+07 5.94E+07
GPV (D /year) 1.84E+09 2.46E+09 2.45E+09 2.75E+09 2.46E+09 2.69E+09

Trend of driving factors 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

U/F 2.25 2.14 2.17 2.11 2.08 2.31

F/(R + N) 4.29 5.00 5.48 5.12 5.20 4.34
(R + N)/AA (seJ/ha) 6.49E+14 6.07E+14 6.07E+14 6.07E+14 6.49E+14 7.95E+14
AA/POP (ha/population) 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.24
POP/Labor (population/working hours) 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.07
Labor/GPV (working hours/D ) 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02
GPV (D /year) 1.84E+09 2.46E+09 2.45E+09 2.75E+09 2.46E+09 2.69E+09

% Contribution to change of total U 1985 1985–1990 1985–1995 1985–2000 1985–2005 1985–2010

U/F 0 −4.92 −3.53 −6.25 −7.77 3.03

F/(R + N) 0 15.44 25.27 17.31 19.44 1.15
(R + N)/AA 0 −6.65 −6.82 −6.49 0.00 20.88
AA/POP 0 −2.33 −9.14 −9.29 −15.75 −31.76
POP/Labor 0 9.72 39.34 67.03 104.75 117.13
Labor/GPV 0 −40.57 −72.25 −114.32 −137.74 −159.83
GPV 0 30.18 32.06 47.74 38.63 54.00

land cropped (Fig. 3), the empower density increased constantly
up to values of the same order of magnitude in both regions. This
trend can be affected by several reasons (different mix of crops and
input resources, decreased efficiency, increased cost of services for
imports). Analytical tables such as Tables 1 and 2 for all years as well
as performance tables such as Tables 3 and 4, as well as decompo-
sition techniques help understand how these factors interact and
if they are the right basis for a sustainable agriculture.
The trends of emergy yield ratio (EYR), environmental loading
ratio (ELR) and Emergy Sustainability Index (ESI) are also presented
in Tables 3 and 4 and provide new insight into the assessment.
The low and relatively constant values of EYR with/without L&S
for both agricultural systems indicate that the largest fraction of
emergy used to generate the yield is invested from outside the
system to drive the process. Unlike past agricultural systems, very
self-reliant although at low yields per hectare, modern agriculture
increasingly requires huge investments from the main economy in
the form of electricity, fertilizers, fuels, etc., while local resources
(ground water, soil nutrients and direct insolation) are marginal-
ized. There are signs of slow improvement, likely due to regional
and European policies: the ELR shows slightly decreasing patterns
(in Emilia Romagna since 1995, in Campania more recently) and
so does the %REN indicator. As a consequence of stable EYR and
decreasing ELR, the Emergy Sustainability Index (ESI) shows an

Table 6
Trends of characterizing flows and driving factors in Campania agriculture 1985–2010, with reference to the year 1985.

Flows (units) 1985 1993 2002 2006 2010

U (seJ/year) 5.27E+21 4.67E+21 5.03E+21 5.13E+21 4.80E+21

F (seJ/year) 1.66E+21 1.58E+21 1.60E+21 1.60E+21 1.23E+21
(R + N) (seJ/year) 7.10E+20 5.24E+20 4.81E+20 4.56E+20 6.78E+20
AA (ha) 9.49E+05 7.42E+05 6.15E+05 6.03E+05 6.51E+05
POP (person) 5.53E+06 5.66E+06 5.70E+06 5.79E+06 5.82E+06
Labor (h/yr) 1.46E+08 1.11E+08 8.93E+07 8.10E+07 6.79E+07
GPV (D /year) 1.53E+09 1.72E+09 2.46E+09 2.22E+09 2.29E+09

Trend of driving factors 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

U/F 3.17 2.96 3.14 3.20 3.91

F/(R + N) 2.34 3.01 3.33 3.52 1.81
(R + N)/AA (seJ/ha) 7.48E+14 7.06E+14 7.81E+14 7.56E+14 1.04E+15
AA/POP (ha/population) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11
POP/Labor (population/working hours) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.09
Labor/GPV (working hours/D ) 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03
GPV (D /year) 1.53E+09 1.72E+09 2.46E+09 2.22E+09 2.29E+09

% Contribution to change of total U 1985 1985–1990 1985–1995 1985–2000 1985–2005

U/F 0.00 −6.33 −0.81 1.02 20.27

F/(R + N) 0.00 24.00 35.17 41.31 −24.78
(R + N)/AA 0.00 −5.46 4.40 1.14 32.78
AA/POP 0.00 −25.58 −46.36 −50.85 −42.31
POP/Labor 0.00 28.74 55.38 69.95 90.45
Labor/GPV 0.00 −38.22 −108.87 −110.90 −137.08
GPV 0.00 11.57 56.53 45.67 51.78
144 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
Fig. 6. Trend of empower density in Emilia Romagna and Campania.
improvement in both regions in recent times, although still at very
low values (Fig. 7), constantly in the low range 0.10–0.20 for both
regions. If the emergy of L&S is not included, it is around 0.20–0.30
for Emilia Romagna and a higher 0.30–0.50 for Campania, indicating
the extent L&S affects agricultural sustainability in both regions.
4.2. Decomposition analysis
The main factors capable to drive changes of total emergy use
U for the two investigated regions were identified in Section 3.3,
Eq. (5). Their quantitative assessment is shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Eq. (5) clearly suggests total emergy U to be linearly dependent on
GPV trend, all other factors remaining the same. Instead, changes
in the other driving factors introduce non-linearity aspects that
need to be carefully taken into account. In order to better discuss
their meaning and the extent they affect the investigated regional
agricultures, it is useful to compare the performance of the two
systems over time in a pictorial way. The contribution of each fac-
tor with reference to the year 1985 is diagrammed in Fig. 8a and
b, although a full understanding of these figures requires a careful
look at Tables 5 and 6 respectively. Our goal is not to ascertain what
is good or not, because in complex systems there are interlinkages
and feedback effects that affect both desired and undesired results.
We try instead to identify the links between each driving factor and
the total value U of emergy use by the system in a given year. When
the links are clearly identified, suitable policies can be designed
based on increased awareness of interdependence of factors.
The first non-linearity factor is U/F, also named EYR (see Section
2.3), expressing the ability of the process to rely on local resources,
no matter renewable or not. The U/F factor slightly decreases,
except in the last few years, in Emilia Romagna, while instead it
Fig. 7. Trends of the Emergy Sustainability Index (ESI) in both regions, with and without L&S.
oscillates and finally increases in Campania. For the sake of clarity,
a change of U/F may derive from:
(i) numerator: a use change of local nonrenewable resources N
(such as ground-water, topsoil organic matter, forest stocks),
renewable flows R (such as rain), imported goods F, labor L,
services S;
(ii) denominator: a use change of imported resources F (being F
both in the numerator and denominator, the impact is a com-
bined effect).
Being U and F relatively stable in the investigated period, the
U/F ratio is also relatively stable, and does not contributes signifi-
cantly to variations of total emergy U. The small changes that are
calculated are mainly land-based changes (declining cropped land,
declining demand for irrigation, less soil erosion due to soil man-
agement policies, more rainfall in most recent years), coupled to
oscillations of F.
A similar discussion can be carried out for the second driving
factor, EIR = F/(R + N), indicating the efficiency of an external invest-
ment in exploiting a unit of local resource. Not all investments are
effective in the same way at exploiting local resources, in spite of
being, perhaps, economically more profitable. Both regions show
that, except in most recent years, a constant and higher outside
resource investment was needed over time in order to exploit a
unit of local resource in Emilia Romagna, while lower but increas-
ing investments were needed in Campania region. In both cases,
investments F contribute to a large extent to increased emergy use,
except for Emilia Romagna recently.
Increased rainfall seems to be responsible of increased local car-
rying capacity (N + R)/AA in recent years; this factor, however, was
not an important driver of changes in total emergy use.
The total cropped land (AA) decrease coupled to regional pop-
ulation (POP) increase determines a decreasing per-capita land
availability, paralleled by a negative percentage contribution to
agricultural emergy use U, likely due to decreased reliance on local
agricultural production (more food is imported).
The population that must be fed per hour of invested agricul-
tural work (POP/Labor) is a powerful driver of increased emergy
use, likely due to the need for increased productivity per hour of
labor.
Finally, labor productivity (Labor/GPV) in terms of ability to gen-
erate more GPV on less hours applied contributes significantly to
decrease the emergy demand in each investigated year.
A suitable policy would therefore be one capable to support the
same amount of product or jobs based on the same (or less) emergy
U, with increasing share of local emergy compared to imports,
 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
Fig. 8. (a) Results of decomposition analysis of total emergy U in Emilia Romagna agricultural system. (b) Results of decomposition analysis of total emergy U in Campania
agricultural system.
and increased labor productivity. In particular, innovative poli-
cies should be implemented on two main factors identified in the
present study:
• First, the need to increase the renewable share of emergy use.
If more renewable electricity, heat, biomaterials, biofuels, fertili-
zers are used, this would entail a decreased amount of imported
(F) and nonrenewable (N) emergy. If more accurate and efficient
water use is implemented, less aqueduct water or ground water
will be required, thus improving the performance indicators in
both regions and Italy as well.
• Second, the need to become aware of the strict links between
cropped land, labor, imports and appropriate marketing, also rec-
ognizing how the outside society affects the performance of the
agricultural system; a better balance must be achieved among
these driving factors in so increasing the overall sustainability of
the agricultural sector.
What comes out, however, of the decomposition exercise is that
all drivers are linked together, and act as increasing factors in some
of the ratios and decreasing factors in others (e.g. Labor), so that
145
the final result in the investigated case is that emergy use remains
relatively constant in spite of the huge increase of GPV.
5. Conclusions
An assessment of the agricultural system of Emilia Romagna
and Campania regions, taken as representative cases of Northern
and Southern Italian agricultural patterns (and ultimately as rep-
resentatives of the national agriculture of Italy, was performed by
combining emergy and decomposition analysis techniques, in order
to investigate their sustainability as well as identify the factors
which most affected the assessed changes in the period covered by
our study. The investigated regional agricultural systems (crop pro-
duction) are highly dependent on non-renewable emergy flows (N)
and purchased input (F) emergy flows. The high values of Environ-
mental Loading Ratios point out this dependence, although slightly
decreasing recenty. As a consequence, the Index of Sustainability
(ESI) ranks around low values in the range 0.10–0.50.
Decreasing trends of purchased input flows (F) in Campania and
non-renewable uses (N) in Emilia Romagna between the years of
1985 and 2010 were identified. However, the total emergy use U in
both regions remained more or less constant over the investigated
time period, in spite of less cropped land. This is why the empower
146 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
density was found to increase up to values around 8.0E+15 seJ/ha
in both regions. The relative constancy of total emergy use U is the
combination of factors driving emergy use variations depending on
a multiplicity of interlinked flows and parameters. Land use change,
labor productivity, the fraction of population to be fed per hour
of agricultural labor and finally the Gross Production Value were
identified as the main drivers of total emergy use, compensating
each other over time.
The two regions show similar trends of interlinkages among
drivers of total emergy use U, in spite of their climatic differences,
land cropped, intensity of production effort. Of course, there are
important differences in specific factors: for example, the contri-
bution of labor productivity to decreasing emergy use is higher
in Emilia Romagna than Campania; the contribution of per capita
land availability in decreasing total emergy use is higher in Campa-
nia than Emilia Romagna, and so on. However, drivers compensate
each other. Such results were not unexpected, since both regions
have a good tradition in food production (farmers’ expertise, qual-
ity, trade) and therefore developed a similar structure of production
processes and a similar reliance on imported production factors.
It may be inferred that such similar behavior is a consequence of
both European and national agricultural policies, similar national
regulations, similar national development incentives.
References
Agostinho, F., Ambrosio, L.A., Ortega, E., 2011. Assessment of emergy indices dynam-
ics on agricultural production of Mogi-Guacu and Pardo Watershed, Brazil. In:
Brown, M.T., Sweeney, S., Campbell, D.E., Huang, S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T.,
Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 6. Theory and Applications of the
Emergy Methodology. Book of Proceedings of the Sixth International Emergy
Research Conference, Gainsville, FL, 14–16 January, 2010. The Center for Envi-
ronmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL, ISBN 978-0-9707325-5-2,
pp. 239–252.
Agronotizie, 2011. ISTAT, aziende agricole in forte calo ma più grandi, Available from:
http://agronotizie.imagelinenetwork.com/attualita/2011/07/07/istat-aziende-
agricole-in-forte-calo-ma-piu-grandi/13643
An, S.Q., Bao, H.H., Zou, C.J., 1998. Studies of emergy flow in a compound
agro-ecosystem in the Taihu Lake area, Jiangsu Province, China. Ecological Engi-
neering 11, 303–313.
Ang, B.W., Zhang, F.Q., 2000. A survey on decomposition analysis in energy and
environmental studies. Energy 25, 1149–1176.
Ang, B.W., 2004. Decomposition analysis for policy making in energy: which is the
preferred method? Energy Policy 32, 1131–1139.
ARPA, 2012. Hydrological Annals Report, Available from: http://www.arpa.emr.it/
documenti.asp?parolachiave=sim annali&cerca=si&idlivello=64&pag=2
(accessed 15.07.12).
Beerman, M., 2007. Increasing sustainability in irrigated agriculture. Emergy based
decision support. In: Brown, M.T., Bardi, E., Campbell, D.E., Huang, S.L., Ortega,
E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 4. Theory and
Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Book of Proceedings of the Fourth
International Emergy Research Conference, Gainsville, FL, 19–21 January, 2006.
The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL, ISBN
0-9707325-3-8, pp. 10.1–10.12.
Bezlepkina, I., Reidsma, P., Sieber, S., Helming, K., 2010. Integrated assessment of sus-
tainability of agricultural systems and land use: methods, tools and applications.
Agricultural Systems 104, 105–109.
Brandt-Williams, S., Pillet, G., 2003. Fertilizer co-products as agricultural emternal-
ities: quantifying environmental services used in production of food. In: Brown,
M.T., Odum, H.T., Tilley, D., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 2. Theory and
Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the Second Biennial
Emergy Conference. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, USA, ISBN 0-9707325-1-1, pp. 327–338.
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 1999. Emergy evaluation of the biosphere and natural capital.
AMBIO 28 (6), 486–493.
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2004b. Emergy analysis and environmental accounting. In:
Cleveland, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy. Academic Press, Elsevier, Oxford, UK,
pp. 329–354.
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2004c. Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odum’s
contribution to quantifying and understanding systems. Ecological Modelling
178, 201–213.
Brown, M., Ulgiati, S., 2010. Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the
geobiosphere: a review and refinement of the emergy baseline. Ecological Mod-
elling 221, 2501–2508.
Burgess, R., 2011. The use of emergy analysis for measuring the environmen-
tal costs and benefits of agricultural practices in Scotland. In: Brown, M.T.,
Sweeney, S., Campbell, D.E., Huang, S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R.,
Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 6. Theory and applications of the Emergy
Methodology. Book of Proceedings of the Sixth International Emergy Research
Conference, Gainsville, FL, 14–16 January, 2010. The Center for Environ-
mental Policy, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL, ISBN 978-0-9707325-5-2,
pp. 265–272.
Cavalett, O., Ortega, E., 2009. Emergy assessment of biodiesel from conventional,
organic and agroecological soybean. In: Brown, M.T., Sweeney, S., Campbell, D.E.,
Huang, S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis
5. Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Book of Proceedings of
the Fifth International Emergy Research Conference, Gainsville, FL, 31 January–2
February, 2008. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida,
Gainsville, FL, ISBN 978-0-9707325-4-5, pp. 265–272.
Chen, G.Q., Jiang, M.M., Chen, B., Yang, Z.F., Lin, C., 2006. Emergy analysis of Chinese
agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 115, 161–173.
Campania, 2011. Regional Rural Development Plan 2007/2013. Midterm Evalu-
ation. Non-technical summary (march 2011), Available from: http://www.
agricoltura.regione.campania.it/psr 2007 2013/monitoraggio/midterm eva
2010.pdf (accessed 26.07.12).
Cialani, C., 2007. Economic growth and environmental quality, an econometric and
a decomposition analysis. Management of Environmental Quality: An Interna-
tional Journal 16, 568–577.
CRA-CMA, 2012. National Agrometeorological Database, Average Regional Rain-
fall, Available from: http://old.politicheagricole.it/ucea/forniture/index3.htm
(accessed 26.07.12).
Cuadra, M., Rydberg, T., 2006. Emergy evaluation on the production, processing, and
export of coffee in Nicaragua. Ecological Modelling 196, 421–433.
De Barros, I., Blazy, J.M., Stachetti Rodrigues, G., Tournebize, R., Cinna, J.P., 2009.
Emergy evaluation and economic performance of banana cropping systems in
Guadeloupe (French West Indies). Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment
129, 437–449.
DECOIN (Development and Comparison of Sustainability Indicators), 2008. Report
of decomposition analysis for indicators – Deliverable D.3.1. Research Project
No. 044428, FP6-2005-SSP-5A, 2006–2009. http://www.decoin.eu/
Doherty, S., Rydberg, T. (Eds.), 2002. Ecosystem properties and principles of living
systems as foundation for sustainable agriculture. Critical reviews of environ-
mental assessment tools, key findings and questions from a course process. CUL,
Ecological Agriculture – 32, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Swedish Univer-
sity of Agricultural Sciences, S-750 07 Uppsala, pp. 1–81. ISBN: 91-576-6109-X.
Emilia Romagna, 2011. Regional Rural Development Plan 2007/2013. Midterm Eval-
uation. Non-technical Summary (march 2011), Available from: http://www.
ermesagricoltura.it/Programmazione-Regionale-dello-Sviluppo-Rurale/
Programma-di-Sviluppo-rurale-2007-2013 (accessed 26.07.12).
European Commission, 2003. Decomposition analysis of carbon dioxide-
emission changes in Germany: conceptual framework and empirical
results. Working Paper and Studies. http://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/
www-edz/pdf/eurostat/03/KS-DB-03-002-EN-N-EN.pdf (accessed 26.07.12).
European Commission, 2005. Agriculture and Rural Development, http://ec.europa.
eu/agriculture/index en.htm (accessed 26.07.12).
Fanfani, R., 2001. L’agricoltura dell’Emilia Romagna nel XX secolo, un cammino di
qualità per produzioni e ambiente. Donzelli.
FAO, 2007. The State of Food and Agriculture 2007; Paying Farmers for Environmen-
tal Services, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1200e/a1200e00.pdf (accessed
01.08.12).
Felice, E., 2011. L’Emilia Romagna, regione guida dell’agricoltura italiana da 150
anni. Filiera Grano Duro News, Available from: http://www.prosementi.com/
images/uploads/graphics 2011/filiera/Filiera Grano duro mews n.18 - apr
2011.pdf
Ferreyra, C., 2006. Emergy Analysis of one century of agricultural production in
the Rolling Pampas of Argentina. International Journal of Agricultural Resources
Governance and Ecology 5 (2/3), 185–205.
Francescatto, G., Agostinho, F., Nachtigall, G.R., Nobre, A., de Jr., A., Ortega, E., 2009.
In: Brown, M.T., Sweeney, S., Campbell, D.E., Huang, S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg,
T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 5. Theory and Applications of
the Emergy Methodology. Book of Proceedings of the Fifth International Emergy
Research Conference, Gainsville, FL, 31 January–2 February, 2008. The Center for
Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL, ISBN 978-0-9707325-
4-5, pp. 299–312.
Frascarelli, A., 2011. Le energie rinnovabili in agricoltura. Agriregionieuropa
Anno 7, Numero 24. Available from: http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/
dettart.php?id articolo=766 (accessed 25.07.12).
Gasparatos, A., 2011. Resource consumption in Japanese agriculture and its link to
food security. Energy Policy 39 (3), 1101–1112.
Giannetti, B.F., Ogura, Y., Bonilla, S.H., Villas Boas de Almeida, C.M., 2011. Emergy
accounting of a coffee farm in the Brazilian savannah. In: Brown, M.T., Sweeney,
S., Campbell, D.E., Huang, S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S.
(Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 6. Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodol-
ogy. Book of Proceedings of the Sixth International Emergy Research Conference,
Gainsville, FL, 14–16 January, 2010. The Center for Environmental Policy, Uni-
versity of Florida, Gainsville, FL, ISBN 978-0-9707325-5-2, pp. 273–286.
Godfray, H., Charles, J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D.,
Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C., 2010. Food secu-
rity: the challenge of feeding 9 Billion people. Science 327, 812, Available
from: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/812.full.pdf (accessed
01.08.12).
Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M.G., Pimentel, D., 2008. Energy and environmental issues
in organic and conventional agriculture. Critical Review in Plant Sciences 27,
239–254.
 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M., 2011. Is there a need for a more sustainable
agriculture? Critical Review in Plant Sciences 30, 6–23.
Goncalves Pereira, L., Ortega, E., 2009. Emergy assessment of ethanol production
from sugarcane in Brazil. In: Brown, M.T., Sweeney, S., Campbell, D.E., Huang,
S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 5. The-
ory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Book of Proceedings of the
Fifth International Emergy Research Conference, Gainsville, FL, 31 January–2
February, 2008. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida,
Gainsville, FL, ISBN 978-0-9707325-4-5, pp. 273–280.
Guillén Trujillo, H.A., 2003. Environmental and economic aspects of agro-forestry
and agricultural systems in Chiapas, Mexico. In: Brown, M.T., Odum, H.T., Tilley,
D., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 2. Theory and Applications of the Emergy
Methodology. Proceedings of the Second Biennial Emergy Conference. The Cen-
ter for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, ISBN
0-9707325-1-1, pp. 109–122.
Hoffrén, J., Luukkanen, J., Kaivo-Oja, J., 2000. Statistical decomposition modelling on
the basis of material flow accounting. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4, 4.
Hoffrén, J., Luukkanen, J., 2001. Decomposition analysis of Finnish Material Flows:
1960–1996. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4, 105–125.
IAASTD, 2008. Agriculture at a Crossroad. Executive Summary of the Synthesis
Report, Available from: http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/
Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads Executive%20Summary%20of%20the
%20Synthesis%20Report%20(English).pdf (accessed 01.08.12).
INRAN, 2012. National Institute of Research in Food and Nutrition: Nutritional
Tables, Available from: http://www.inran.it/646/tabelle di composizione degli
alimenti.html (accessed 26.07.12).
ISPRA, 2012. Annual Reports of Climate Indicators in Italy, Available from:
http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/stato-dellambiente/gli-
indicatori-del-clima-in-italia-nel-2010-anno (accessed 27.07.12).
ISTAT, 2010. General Agricultural Census, First Results, Available from:
http://censimentoagricoltura.istat.it/index.php?id=73
ISTAT, 2012a. Agricultural Statistics, Available from: http://agri.istat.it (accessed
15.07.12).
ISTAT, 2012b. Gross Production Value (GPV), Available from: http://www.
istat.it/it/archivio/1654 (accessed 15.07.12).
ISTAT, 2012c. Residential Population in Emilia Romagna Region and Cam-
pania Region, http://seriestoriche.istat.it/index.php?id=7&user 100ind pi1[id
pagina=44&cHash=b58adf960212bedd42e9fa9d2f2765a7] (accessed 26.07.12).
Jungnitz, A., 2008. Decomposition analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and energy
and material inputs in Germany. In: Resource Productivity, Environmental Tax
Reform and Sustainable Growth in Europe.
Lagerberg, C., Brown, M.T., 1999. Improving agricultural sustainability: the case of
Swedish greenhouse tomatoes. Journal of Cleaner Production 7, 421–434.
Lan, S.F., Odum, H.T., Liu, X.M., 1998. Energy flow and emergy analysis of the agroe-
cosystems of China. Ecologic Science 17 (1), 32–39.
Lee, Y.C., Huang, S.L., 2011. Emergy synthesis of ecosystem service in agri-
cultural land: a case study of the Taoyuan area, Taiwan. In: Brown, M.T.,
Sweeney, S., Campbell, D.E., Huang, S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R.,
Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 6. Theory and Applications of the Emergy
Methodology. Book of Proceedings of the Sixth International Emergy Research
Conference, Gainsville, FL, 14–16 January, 2010. The Center for Environ-
mental Policy, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL, ISBN 978-0-9707325-5-2,
pp. 123–130.
Lefroy, E., Rydberg, T., 2003. Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in South-
western Australia. Ecological Modelling 161, 195–211.
Lotka, A.J., 1922a. Contribution to the energetics of evolution. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8, 147–215.
Lotka, A.J., 1922b. Natural selection as a physical principle. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8,
151–215.
Luukkanen, J., Malaska, P., 2001. Advanced sustainability analysis. In: Tolba, M.K.
(Ed.), Our Fragile Word’ Overview of Life Support System and Sustainable
Development. Encyclopedia of Life Supporting System EOLSS Forerunner. EOLSS
publishers Co., UNESCO, Oxford, UK, pp. 1525–1552.
Malaska, P., Luukkanen, J., 2001. A new sustainability evaluation framework and
alterative analytical scenarios of national economies. Population and Environ-
ment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 23 (2), 193–215.
Manna, P., 2012. La produzione di energia da fonti rinnovabili e il con-
tributo dell’agricoltura. Agriregionieuropa 7 (24), Available from: http://
agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/dettart.php?id articolo=753 (accessed 25.07.12).
Martin, J.F., Diemont, S.A.W., Powell, E., Stanton, M., Levy-Tacher, S., 2006. Emergy
evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems
with different scales and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environ-
ment 115, 128–140.
Mazzeo, G., 2009. From the metropolitan area to the urban sprawl: the patchiness
of the territory. Trimestrale del laboratorio Territorio e Mobilità e Ambiente.
Dipartimento di Pianificazione e Scienza del Territorio, Università degli Studi di
Napoli Federico II.
Odum, H.T., 1983. Maximum power and efficiency: a rebuttal. Ecological Modelling
20, 71–82.
Odum, H.T., 1984. Energy analysis of the environmental role in agriculture. In: Stan-
hill, G. (Ed.), Energy and Agriculture. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 24–51 (192
pp).
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental accounting. In: Emergy and Environmental
Decision-Making. Wiley, New York.
147
Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T., Williams, S.B., 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evalua-
tion: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of
Folios. Folio #1 – Introduction and Global Budget Center for Environmental
Policy.
Ortega, E., Miller, M., Anami, M.H., Beskow, P.R., 2003. From emergy analysys to
public policy: soybean in Brazil. In: Brown, M.T., Odum, H.T., Tilley, D., Ulgiati, S.
(Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 2. Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology.
Proceedings of the Second Biennial Emergy Conference. The Center for Environ-
mental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, ISBN 0-9707325-1-1,
pp. 77–94.
Pereira, L., Zucaro, A., Ortega, E., Ulgiati, S., submitted for publication. Wealth, trade
and the environment. An emergy-based comparison of carrying capacity, eco-
nomic performance and wellbeing in Brazil and Italy. Energy Policy.
Pettenella, D., Ciccarese, L., 2010. Agricoltura, selvicoltura e cambiamenti cli-
matici. Agriregionieuropa 6 (21), Available from: http://agriregionieuropa.
univpm.it/dettart.php?id articolo=635 (accessed 27.07.12).
Pillet, G., Zingg, N., Maradan, D., 2007. Appréciation quantitative des externalités
de l’agriculture suisse. Final report. Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture, Berne,
Switzerland, 2000, 227 pp.
Rabboni, T., 2012. Il calo frena in pianura, accellera in montagna. Agricoltura,
mensile della Regione Emilia Romagna: http://www.ermesagricoltura.it/
Informazioni/Agricoltura/Archivio-Agricoltura/GENNAIO-2012-anno-40-n.1
Rodrigues, G.S., Kitamura, P.C., Sà, T.D.de A., Vielhauer, K., 2003. Sustainability
assessment of slash-and-burn and fire-free agriculture in Northeastern Parà,
Brazil. In: Brown, M.T., Odum, H.T., Tilley, D., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Syn-
thesis 2. Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings
of the Second Biennial Emergy Conference. The Center for Environmen-
tal Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA, ISBN 0-9707325-1-1,
pp. 95–108.
Rydberg, T., Jansen, J., 2002. Comparison of horse and tractor traction using emergy
analysis. Ecological Engine 19, 13–28.
Rydberg, T., Gustafson, G., Boonstra, W., 2007. Farming in a prosperous way down. A
systems ecology approach. In: Brown, M.T., Bardi, E., Campbell, D.E., Huang, S.L.,
Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 4. Theory
and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Book of Proceedings of the Fourth
International Emergy Research Conference, Gainsville, FL, 19–21 January, 2006.
The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL, ISBN
0-9707325-3-8, pp. 5.1–5.10.
Saifi, B., Drake, L., 2008. Swedish agriculture during the twentieth century in relation
to sustainability. Ecological Economics 68, 370–380.
Sheinbaum-Pardo, C., Mora-Peréz, S., Robles-Morales, G., 2012. Decomposition of
energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Mexican manufacturing indus-
tries: trends between 1990 and 2008. Energy for Sustainable Development 16,
57–67.
SMILE (Synergies in Multi-scale Inter-Linkages of Eco-systems), 2011. Collaborative
Project No. 217213, FP7-SSH-2007-1, 2008–2011. http://www.smile-fp7.eu/
Reddy, B.S., Ray, B.K., 2010. Decomposition of energy consumption and energy inten-
sity in Indian manufacturing industries. Energy for Sustainable Development 14,
35–47.
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the sus-
tainable intensification of agriculture. In: Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, Available from: http://www.
pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/16/1116437108.full.pdf+html (accessed
01.08.12).
Ulgiati, S., Odum, H.T., Bastianoni, S., 1993. Emergy analysis of Italian agricul-
tural system. The role of energy quality and environmental inputs. In: Bonati,
L., Cosentino, U., Lasagni, M., Moro, G., Pitea, D., Schiraldi, A. (Eds.), Trends
in Ecological Physical Chemistry. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,
pp. 187–215.
Ulgiati, S., Cassano, M., Pavoletti, M., 1995. Bridging nature and the economy.
The energy basis of growth and development in Italy. European Commu-
nity, Environmental Research Programme. Area III, Economic and Social
Aspects of the Environment. Research Contract No.EV5V-CT92-0152. Final
Report.
Ulgiati, S., Brown, M.T., 1998. Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and
man-made ecosystems. Ecological Modelling 108, 23–26.
UNWCED, 1987. Our Common Future Brundtland Report. United Nations World
Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1999. Sustainable Agriculture: Defini-
tion and Terms. Special Reference Briefs Series No. SRB 99-02. Available from:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml (accessed 01.08.12).
UMA, 2012. Utenti Motori Agricoli, Available from: http://www.ucer.camcom.
it/studi-ricerche/banche-dati/bd/agricolt/uma (accessed 27.07.12).
Viglia, S., Zucaro, A., Franzese, P.P., Blackstock, K.L., Matthews, K.B., Ulgiati, S., 2011.
Exploring resource use and biophysical constraints on Scottish agriculture, at
regional and national scales. In: Brown, M.T., Sweeney, S., Campbell, D.E., Huang,
S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 6.
Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Book of Proceedings of the
Sixth International Emergy Research Conference, Gainsville, FL, 14–16 January,
2010. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL,
ISBN 978-0-9707325-5-2, pp. 359–372.
WWF, 2012. Territorio agricolo a perdere in “Terra rubata: Viaggio nell’Italia
che scompare” Dossier, http://www.fondoambiente.it/upload/oggetti/
ConsumoSuolo Dossier finale-1.pdf
148 P. Ghisellini et al. / Ecological Modelling 271 (2014) 132–148

Vehmas, J., 2009. Decomposition analysis of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion
in selected countries. International Journal of Environmental Technology and
Management 11 (1/2/3), 47–67.
von Bertalanffy, L., 1968. General System Theory. G. Braziller Pub., New York, p. 306.
Zucaro, A., Mellino, S., Viglia, S., Ulgiati, S., 2011. Emergy evaluation of Ital-
ian agriculture across space and time scales. In: Brown, M.T., Sweeney, S.,
Campbell, D.E., Huang, S.L., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S.
(Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 6. Theory and Applications of the Emergy Method-
ology. Book of Proceedings of the Sixth International Emergy Research
Conference, Gainsville, FL, 14–16 January, 2010. The Center for Environ-
mental Policy, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL, ISBN 978-0-9707325-5-2,
pp. 373–390.

View publication stats