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

net/publication/361269027

Environmental Sustainability Assessment: Potato Production in Western Iran

Article  in  Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability · June 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s41660-022-00262-2

CITATIONS READS

0 65

3 authors:

Mohammad Abdolmaleky Karim Naderi Mahdei

U Bu-Ali Sina University
6 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   435 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Parisa Nejatian

1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Environmental impact assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Karim Naderi Mahdei on 29 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00262-2

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Environmental Sustainability Assessment: Potato Production

in Western Iran
Mohammad Abdolmaleky1   · Karim Naderi Mahdei2   · Parisa Nejatian2

Received: 23 February 2022 / Revised: 25 May 2022 / Accepted: 26 May 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022

Abstract
Potato is an important crop that plays an essential role in providing livelihoods for rural areas in many parts of Western Iran
such as Hamedan Province, and its production requires huge amounts of resources such as water, fossil energy, and agro-
chemicals whose utilization degrades the environment in different ways. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the environ-
mental sustainability of potato production by ecological footprint analysis. The ecological footprint (EF) is an alternative
indicator of the impact of human activity on the environment. This study assesses the environmental sustainability of potato
production by ecological footprint analysis in Hamedan as a major potato producer located in the west of Iran. Global hectares
(gha) were used to measure the ecological footprint unit. A sample of 150 potato growers was randomly selected. The study
was conducted by descriptive-survey research method using a questionnaire. The validity of the questionnaire was checked
by face and content validity. The reliability of the instrument was estimated at 0.92. To assess environmental sustainability,
consumption-based ecological footprint, yield-based EF, and direct and indirect EF were analyzed. According to the results
of the indices used, potato cultivation is environmentally unsustainable. Energy assessments showed that the total energy
consumption was more than the ecological capacity of the required land to produce potatoes per hectare (1.26 gha). EFco2
was estimated at 0.57 gha, and the EF based on energy consumption was measured to be 3.06 gha. Accordingly, an area
of 0.57 ha and 0.7 ha of productive land would be needed to meet the challenge of bio-capacity reduction, respectively.
The EF of seed, diesel, and nitrogen fertilizer in both calculations had the highest impact on environmental sustainability.
They were estimated at 30.5, 27.1, and 20.3% of global hectares, respectively. Findings implied that lower use of diesel and
nitrogen fertilizer could play a significant role in mitigating the environmental impacts of potato production in Hamedan.
Thus, strategies such as the use of combined and advanced machinery to reduce the plowing operations, technical inspection
of agricultural machinery for lower and optimal fuel consumption, increase in the use of organic and compost fertilizers,
compliance with the permissible limit of fertilizer consumption, and the use of non-chemical methods such as biological
pest control are recommended.

Keywords  Environmental impacts · Energy consumption · Ecological footprint · Emission of pollution

Introduction countries, have increased agricultural activity with differ-

In the modernization era, external inputs have particu-
larly been emphasized in agricultural activities. Synthetic
chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, and other envi-
ronmental contaminants, used particularly in developing
* Karim Naderi Mahdei
knadery@basu.ac.ir
1
Department of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University,
Khorramabad Branch, Khorramabad, Iran
2
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Bu-Ali
Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
ent consequences such as soil acidification and salinization,
emission of gases with adverse effects, nitrogen leaching
to groundwater, and eutrophication (Naderi Mahdei et al.
2015; Iyyapazham 2007; Meisterling et al. 2009). Especially,
the use of nitrogen fertilizers has increased dramatically in
recent decades (Ostad-Ali-Askari et  al. 2017). Insecure
extravagance can be harmful to humans, creatures, and con-
ditions (Ostad-Ali-Askari 2022).
When ranking the industries that have more prevalent
environmental impacts, agriculture holds a considerable
share of responsibility (Trigo et al. 2021; Abdul Murad et al.
2019). Agriculture has considerable environmental impacts

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

as it is responsible for approximately 20% of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (United States Environmental Protection
Agency 2016). As a primary food producer, GHG emissions
from agriculture contribute 0.12–0.17 to global GHG emis-
sions. Rapidly increasing anthropogenic GHG emissions are
making a significant contribution to global climate change.
The global mean temperature increased by 0.74 °C from
1906 to 2005; specifically, the linear warming trend has been
0.13 °C per decade over the 50 years, which is nearly twice
as great as the rate for the last 100 years (Cheng et al. 2015).
Iran is the largest emitter of GHGs in the Middle East, where
the agricultural sector emits 36.5% N ­ 2O gas and 2% ­CO2 and
­CH4 (Nikkhah et al. 2014).
Climate change affects the hydrologic cycle components,
such as evapotranspiration, which are important for the plan-
ning and management of water resources (Talebmorad et al.
2020). Meanwhile, population growth and improvement in
living standards have increased water demand worldwide
along with decreasing water supply as a result of climate
change and the vulnerability to drought events (Ostad-Ali-
Askari et al. 2017). Water consumption and pollution have
exceeded the critical level in many parts of the globe. In
addition, agricultural lands and water resources in most
developing countries are gradually being destroyed (Abdol-
maleky et al. 2011).
Therefore, sustainable agriculture is one of the most
important policies and procedures that need to be followed
in the agricultural sector (Taghdisi and Besagh 2012; Li
et al. 2010).
Hence, evaluating environmental capacities and study-
ing environmental impacts of agricultural production, even
those of the so-called environmentally friendly crops, have
increased in recent years (Lima et al. 2020; Esfahani et al.
2017; Zhang et al. 2014; Yarali et al. 2011). One important
facet of studying agricultural systems is to evaluate their
sustainability. Since sustainability is a qualitative concept,
it cannot be directly measured. Therefore, appropriate indi-
cators must be selected to determine the sustainability of
an agricultural system (Kouchaki et al. 2015). Nowadays,
various quantitative and qualitative methods have been pro-
posed to assess the sustainability of agricultural systems and
their adverse environmental impacts at the farm level (Van
der Werf et al. 2007; Heidarzadeh et al. 2006). One way
of measuring sustainability and one of the most important
quantitative models is the ecological footprint (EF) known
as an accounting metric that assesses humanity’s pressure
on natural resources and situates consumption levels within
the Earth’s ecological limits. EF is widely recognized as an
excellent measure of environmental sustainability used by
governments and institutions worldwide (Lim 2020; Ashvin
Kumar and Tikendra Kumar 2019; Moore 2011). EF can be
used to investigate relationships between population, envi-
ronment, and development.
13
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability
EF specifies the area required for supporting an activity
by estimating the biologically productive land area required
for supplying consumed resources and assimilating the pro-
duced wastes measured in terms of global hectares (Wack-
ernagel and Rees 1996; Solis-Guzman et al. 2013). In this
context, it has even been considered an absolute indicator of
sustainability (Toth et al. 2018).
There are two main methods for calculating EF: life cycle
assessment (LCA) and input–output analysis (IOA) (Ago-
stinho and Pereira 2013). These two methods have been criti-
cized because EF assessment requires a different approach
at macro-compared to micro-levels like a city or province
and for particular agricultural activities and crop production
on a farm. Therefore, in the first decade of the twenty-first
century, the place-oriented approach (POA) was proposed as
a new method of EF assessment by scientists like Kissinger
and Gottlieb (2012) and Guzman et al. (2013). This method
combines the two previous techniques and focuses more spe-
cifically on a particular place.
EF is increasingly used as an indicator of the sustain-
ability of agricultural production and a good criterion for
evaluating energy consumption, GHG emissions, nitrates’
contamination from fertilizers and pesticides, and land and
water use in agriculture (Khorramdel et al. 2016; Anielski
and Wilson 2010).
Some studies have used EF to assess the sustainability of
agricultural production based on energy consumption and
products (Tittonell and Giller 2013; Dong et al. 2013; Aniel-
ski and Wilson 2010; Cheng et al. 2011; Naderi Mahdei
et al. 2015; Rezaei et al. 2019). Measuring and estimating
consumption is a prerequisite for environmental manage-
ment and pollution reduction (Toth et al. 2018; Wackernagel
et al. 2004). Thus, the main components of this approach,
particularly in agricultural activities, are the consumption
of inputs such as fuels, labor, agrochemicals, pesticides, and
machinery, as well as production and waste products. Some
studies have evaluated the sustainability of agriculture using
EF analysis in different ways. Esfahani et al. (2017), Dashti
et al. (2019), and Akif Destek and Sarkodie (2019), for
instance, estimated EF by IOA. The agricultural EF and its
suitability were studied based on LCA by Fallahpour et al.
(2012), Gan et al. (2011), and Khorramdel et al. (2016).
Based on global statistics, the biocapacity in Iran has
had a slightly decreasing trend from 1971 up to now,
but the size of EFs has rapidly increased more than its
bio-capacity, so an ecological deficit has occurred since
1980 (Rezaei et al. 2019). Thus, returning to the condi-
tion in which EF equals biocapacity is the least to be done
to decrease the pressure on nature (Fatemi et al. 2018).
Hamedan Province is located in the west of Iran and has a
cold semi-arid climate with an annual rainfall of 340 mm.
In this province, the total area under potato cultivation is
more than 20,000 ha with an annual production rate of
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability
over 920,000 t, placing it in the first rank of potato produc-
tion in Iran. The average potato yield per hectare ranges
from 34,000 to 40,000 t, and 23% of Iran’s potato crop is
produced in this province (Hamedan Jihad of Agriculture
Organization 2021). Hamedan, the central city of the prov-
ince, is the center of a county that is one of the most criti-
cal areas of potato production in this province. Although
a large proportion of Iran’s potato production is related to
Hamedan Province, there seems to be no clear picture of
the sustainability status of agricultural operations. None-
theless, no serious endeavors and research have so far been
undertaken in Iran on assessing the environmental impact
of various practices affecting the resources (Naderi Mahdei
et al. 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to assess the envi-
ronmental impacts of potato production in the region to
inform local policymakers, decision-makers, researchers,
and farmers in their routine decisions. This study is, hence,
concerned with studying the EF indicator. The application
of EF analysis in agriculture is a new and evolving subject.
To assess the environmental sustainability of potato pro-
duction based on energy consumption, we used the place-
oriented method (POA) proposed by Kissinger and Gottlieb
(2012) and Guzman et al. (2013) as a new method of the EF
assessment that focuses more specifically on a particular
place and product. In addition, this flexible method can cal-
culate footprints using data from different locations, which
is an aspect considered in this study. The specific objectives
of the present study were to (1) describe the demographic
profile of potato producers, (2) identify the most crucial
production inputs in terms of sustainability, and (3) assess
the production sustainability using EF.
Fig. 1  Map of the study area
Methodology
Description of the Study Area and Data Collection
Hamedan, located in the west of Iran, is one of the most
important agricultural centers in the province, where agri-
culture has a significant role in employment and income
opportunities for local people (Hamedan Jihad of Agri-
culture Organization 2021). Indeed, 51% of employment
in the rural areas of Hamedan Province is accounted for
by the agricultural sector in which potato has a significant
share (Pakizeh 2021). The study area lies between latitude
34° 48′ and 35° 48′ N and longitudes 48° 32′ and 49° 36′
E (Fig. 1).
This study aims to assess the environmental sustainabil-
ity of potato production in Hamedan Province by using the
EF technique. Since the introduction of the EF approach,
it has been widely used in several case studies.
The research was quantitative and applied research.
Research design was non-experimental type based on sur-
vey research. To estimate EF, data were collected using
a questionnaire, accompanied by face-to-face discussions
with randomly selected farmers. Based on the review of
the literature, the researcher developed an instrument to
collect data. The survey was divided into two sections. The
first section was demographic variables, and the second
section was related to production variables designed to
gather data on the amount of input consumption and crop
production. The face and content validity of the question-
naire was established using a panel of experts consisting of
faculty members at Bu-Ali Sina University and extension
13

officers. Its reliability was determined by calculating
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which was estimated to be
0.92. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS 26). The statistical popu-
lation consisted of all potato producers who were mem-
bers of agricultural production cooperatives (N = 2100)
in Hamedan county out of whom 150 producers were
randomly selected. The sample size was specified using
Cochran’s formula, represented in Eq. 1. To achieve the
best results possible, the sample size was increased to 150
participants.
z2 pq 1.962 ∗0.50∗0.50
d2 0.052
n= ( )= ( ) = 96
1 z2 pq 1 1.962 ∗0.50∗0.50
1+ −1 1+
N d2 2100 0.052
where, N, n, P, q, d, and z represent the target popula-
tion, sample size, a quantity of an attribute present in the
population, percentage of people lacking this attribute,
accepted margin of error, and quantity of table z at the
95% confidence level, respectively.
The environmental sustainability of potato production
was estimated by calculating consumption-based EF, yield-
based ecological footprint, and direct and indirect EF.
Ecological Footprint Assessment
The study of environmental indicators that can highlight
ecologically suitable options is a critical factor in sustain-
ability and environmental management. There are several
frameworks for sustainability assessment that evaluate the
performance of food companies, farms, or even the entire
agricultural sector of a country (Cerutti et al. 2013). Since
the introduction of sustainability and environmental manage-
ment, many studies have been conducted and developed to
provide related indices to help decision-makers, planners,
and specifically environmentalists (Fatemi et al. 2018; Habibi
et al. 2018). Natural resources and environmental issues occur
within complex natural and social systems (Berkes et al.
2003). Providing a framework that integrates both social and
biophysical components into one environmental management
system offers excellent potential for obtaining more sustain-
able outcomes (Virapongse et al. 2016).
Iran needs increased integration of social and natural
sciences. Due to the increasing utilization of synthetic
chemical inputs in the agriculture business in Iran and its
consequent environmental impacts, a significant indicator
to measure the consumption of natural resources is the
first step in addressing the challenges Iran is facing and
presenting solutions (Fatemi et al. 2018).
13
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability
One of the indicators that have attracted attention at the
academic, political, and educational levels is the Ecological
Footprint Assessment. The concept of footprint, which was
derived from EF, was first introduced into the scientific com-
munity by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel in 1996.
Subsequently, a variety of footprint indicators were proposed
to complete EF. The most important ones are energy foot-
print, water footprint, emergy footprint, exergy footprint,
carbon footprint, ecological footprint of different species of
life, chemical footprints, phosphorus footprint, and nitro-
gen footprint (Naderi Mahdei et al. 2015). EF, which has
been proposed as a powerful communication tool to inform
people about the environmental impact caused by excessive
production and consumption, is defined as the area of pro-
−1
ductive land and water required by the ecosystem to produce
(1) resources and assimilate the wastes (Cerutti et al. 2013). The
EF methodology is based on integrating detailed available
data. From an environmental point of view, sustainable agri-
cultural activity occurs when the long-term use of resources
is induced by the environmental carrying capacity. There-
fore, the EF evaluation of agriculture is the first step in the
overall assessment of agricultural sustainability.
EF estimates the pressure that population and industrial pro-
cesses put on the ecosystem by evaluating and calculating the
energy and materials used in a city, region, or country (Habibi
et al. 2018). It is a potential tool to jointly measure planetary
boundaries and the extent to which humanity is exceeding them
(Fatemi et al. 2018). It was proposed about two decades ago
as both an approach and a method to determine the degree of
(un)sustainability of activities and regions/countries (Van den
Bergh and Grazi 2014). EF is measured in global hectares (Rees
and Wackernagel 1996). An area is measured according to the
average productivity of biologically productive land in a given
year to make different land-use types comparable globally (Lim
2020; Moore 2011; Kitzes et al. 2007). An area is considered
unsustainable if a land’s EF is more than its biocapacity at the
global scale, meaning that humanity is using more than can be
regenerated, and, therefore, must be drawing down the standing
stock of resources or causing an accumulation of wastes that
must be processed by the biosphere (Lim 2020; Moore 2011).
Therefore, this index can predict the amount of land required for
producing products and assimilating the produced wastes. This
index is used today in most countries at the national and local
levels (Habibi et al. 2018; Toth et al. 2018).
Many studies have been carried out to measure the EF
of a specific activity or production. Since it is an evolving
method, EF was defined in the present study as the area of
productive land required to compensate for the environmen-
tal impacts being generated by inputs and resources that have
been used in potato production, such as seeds, fertilizers,
machinery, fuel, and pesticides.
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability

Consumption‑Based EF Assessment percentage of coal output by plants (0.314%) in grams,

K represents the constant-coefficient to convert grams
Fertilizers, tools, and pesticides used in agricultural to tons (1,000,000), and CO indicates the capability of a
systems create significant traces of carbon monoxide hectare of land to absorb carbon in tons (1.8 t, Guzman
(Van der Werf and Turnen 2008). According to the et al. 2013).
research, each hectare of land can absorb 1.8 t of carbon To estimate the energy consumption, there are particu-
(Gharkhloo et al. 2009). The carbon uptake criterion has lar equivalence factors (EqF) that are used to estimate the
been used as the basis for assessing EF in this study. The amount of energy produced from each of the inputs and out-
comparison criterion for ecological sustainability was the puts affecting the environment, in terms of global hectares,
global hectares in which each hectare of land can absorb as shown in Table 1.
1.8 t of carbon (Guzman et al. 2013). When the EF of
agriculture is more than the stated amount, it is consid- Yield‑based ecological footprint
ered environmentally unsustainable. The EF model was
developed and evaluated for assessing the environmental The EF in this method was estimated by Eq. 5 as shown
sustainability of potato production based on energy con- below:
sumption by using the place-oriented method proposed ( )
∑n (Pi )(PP × PC)
by Kissinger and Gottlieb (2012) and Guzman et  al. EPt = (5)
(2013), as shown below:
i=1 Co

∑n
(
Ei × T
) where EPt is the yield-based EF in a global hectare, Pi
EFt = EFi = (2) is the amount of crop i (potato) in tons, PP represents the
i=1 Co
percentage of coal output by plants (0.314%) in grams, PC
denotes the percentage of the carbon in coal (85%) in grams,
Ec = Fi × EqFi × 1000 (3) and Co shows the capability of a hectare of land to absorb
( ) carbon in tons (1.8 t).
Pc
T= (4) Direct and Indirect EF Assessment
CO × Oc × K

where EFt is EF in terms of global hectares, Fi is
the factor of the ith component, Ei denotes the energy
i component in kilojoules, Ec represents the ability to
generate energy per gram of coal (20  kJ), E q Fi is the
equivalent factor for the ith component, Pc shows the
percentage of carbon in coal (85%) in grams, Oc is the
One important critique on estimating EF in agriculture is
that it overlooks operation type and use of exogenous inputs
in farms. It seems that this footprint is estimated based on
prevailing land operations, so it cannot distinguish sustaina-
ble operations from unsustainable ones. More intensive land
uses can, therefore, result in lower footprints (Passeri et al

Table 1  Equivalence factors for Inputs and outputs Consumption unit Equivalence factors Source
the inputs and outputs used in of energy (MJ u­ nit−1)
the production of potato
Potato seed kg 3.6 Ozkan et al. (2004)
Machinery hour 62.7 Cetin and Vardar (2008)
Diesel liter 56.31 Khosruzzaman et al. (2010)
Nitrogen kg 66.14 Yilmaz et al. (2005)
Phosphorous kg 12.14 Zangeneh et al. (2010)
Potassium kg 11.15 Esengun et al. (2007)
Sulfur kg 1.12 Mohammadi et al. (2014)
Manure kg 300 Demircan et al. (2006); Ozkan et al.
(2004)
Micro kg 120 Canakci and Akinci (2006)
Herbicides kg of active ingredient 238 Zangeneh et al. (2010)
Insecticide kg of active ingredient 101.2 Ozkan et al. (2004)
Fungicides kg of active ingredient 216 Ozkan et al. (2004)
Potato kg 3.6 Zangeneh et al. (2010)

13

2013). Such flaws question the comprehensiveness of this
footprint measure as a tool for biophysical assessment and
robust measurement. Unsustainable agricultural practices
may increase production in the short run but with long-run
adverse impacts. In this case, footprint measurement will
be misleading. For example, a farm that produces more is
accompanied by adverse environmental impacts, utilizing
exogenous inputs, which will distract estimation of the foot-
print measure (Esfahani et al 2017).
Huijbregts et  al. (2008) suggested that EF could be
divided into direct and indirect parts. Accordingly, EF was
defined as the sum of real and virtual lands directly or
indirectly related to crop production and required to absorb
­CO2 emitted by that production. It has been expressed as
Eq. 6 (Cerutti et al. 2013).
EF = EFreal + EFco2 (6)
where EF real shows land occupied over time by crop-
lands, built areas, pastures, and forests for crop production
and is calculated by Eq. 7 (Cerutti et al. 2013).
∑ Most farmers (83.3%) owned a tractor, and 65.3% owned a
EFreal = A ⋅ EqFa
a a
(7)
in which Aa represents the amount of land occupied
with type a (cropland, forest, pasture, and built area), a Aa
∑
equals 1 while EqFa resembles the equivalence factor for
land type a, E qFa is equal to 2.51, and EqFa is a global
value for each land category needed to convert a specific
land-use type into a universal unit of biologically produc-
tive area (global hectares) (Mamouni Limnios et al. 2009).
EqF for different lands is presented in Table 2.
EF co2 shows the amount of forest required for absorb-
ing ­CO2 emitted during the product’s life cycle, which is
calculated by Eq. 8.
Ei
EFco2 = (8)
Ep
where Ei represents the amount of energy consumption
by inputs in gigajoules per hectare, and Ep is the capabil-
ity of 1 ha of forest land to absorb carbon released from
energy equaling 71 GJ petroleum.
Table 2  Equivalence factor for EF estimation (Gonzalez-Vallejo et al.
2015)
Productive land category EqF gha ha−1
Cropland 2.51
Pastures 0.46
Forest 1.26
Productive area 0.37
Built land 2.51
13
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability
Results and Discussion
Descriptive Results
Potato production stages, including field plowing, planting,
and harvesting, are all mechanized. The findings showed
that all of the respondents were male. The average age of
the respondents was 44 years with 38% being in the range
of 36–50. The minimum age of the respondents was 22, and
the maximum age was 78. Also, 83% of the participants were
married. The collected data showed that the average house-
hold size in the study area was five members. Regarding
respondents’ education level, 33.3% had basic literacy, and
18% held a diploma. The results also revealed that the main
occupation of 89.3% of the respondents was farming. The
minimum and maximum working experience of the respond-
ents was 4 and 60 years, respectively. Their average working
experience was 24.91 years. The findings also showed that
their average land ownership was 13.01 ha. About two-thirds
(65.3%) of them owned less than 10 ha of farming land.
potato harvester. Their mean cultivation area and production
yields were 6.25 ha and 40.43 t ­ha−1, respectively. Finally,
100% of the respondents were members of cooperatives.
Consumption‑Based EF Assessment in Potato
Production
As is evident in Table 3, the seed, fuels, and chemical fer-
tilizers had the highest impact on environmental unsustain-
ability. EF in terms of energy consumption was derived from
environmental indicators such as seeds, chemical fertilizers,
and fuel as shown in Table 3.
To estimate the amount of energy consumption for an input
used, the amount of the input was multiplied by its equiva-
lence factor (EqF). As Table 3 shows, the highest share of
energy consumption in terms of quantity and percentage
belongs to seed, diesel, and nitrogen fertilizer, respectively.
According to the total energy consumption calculated in
Table 3, the EF of potato production was estimated at 3.06
gha. Based on the results, the seed factor had the most sig-
nificant impact (30.5%) on EF followed by the diesel factor
(27.1%) and the nitrogen fertilizer factor (20.3%). The follow-
ing model demonstrates the EF of potato production (Eq. 9).
� �
∑n Ei ×T
EFpotato = EFt = i=1 EFi = Co
(9)
� % 0.85
�
40915.17 MJ ×1000×( 20×% 0.314×1000000
= 1.8 t
�
40915.17×1000×0.000000135
�
= 1.8 t
= 3.06
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability

Table 3  The EF of potato production by inputs consumption of fertilizers and chemical pesticides can
Factors Amount Energy Footprint Percentage Rank be put into action, such as increasing the use of organic
estimation (gha) * fertilizers and composts, compliance with the permissible
(MJ) limit of fertilizer consumption, and minimizing the use
of pesticides to control pests and weeds and using non-
Seed 3743 13,478 1.01 30.5 1
chemical methods such as biological pest control to prevent
Diesel 207.8 11,701.2 0.877 27.1 2
pests’ resistance to chemical toxins. Also, due to water
Nitrogen 132.72 8778.1 0.658 20.3 3
shortage in the study region, strategies such as allocating
Micro 1.83 2793 0.209 3.38 4
low-interest facilities to farmers to use modern irrigation
Machinery 24.9 1674.09 0.125 2.95 5
methods and encouraging them to integrate their farms to
Phospho- 70.18 872.9 0.065 2.03 6
rous increase the use of these methods in farm irrigation are
Potassium 50.96 568.2 0.042 1.35 7 recommended.
Fungicides 1.71 369.9 0.027 0.67 8 Considering the total energy consumption in potato
Manure 9.31 219.6 0.016 0.33 9 cultivation, EF was estimated to be 3.06 gha. This
Herbicides 0.92 218.9 0.016 0.33 10 amount is much higher than the ecological capacity of
Insecticides 1.57 158.8 0.012 0.33 11 the land used to produce potatoes per hectare. The eco-
Sulfur 73.65 82.48 0.006 0.16 12 logical capacity needed to absorb environmental pollu-
Total 40,915.17 3.06 100 tion in 1 ha of productive land in potato production has
been considered 1.8 gha. In other words, this crop emits
*The footprint was estimated for a hectare 1.26 t of extra carbon. Therefore, potato production is
environmentally unsustainable. Accordingly, it needs
This study showed that for potato cultivation, high and an area equivalent to 0.7 ha of more land to absorb the
irregular consumption of seed, diesel, and nitrogen fertilizer excess environmental pollution.
has caused the highest environmental pollution. Therefore, Since the footprint measure is a relatively novel con-
reducing the consumption of these inputs can help reduce cept in research on sustainability, there are not many
EF. Among the factors related to potato production in similar studies on the potato to compare the assessment
Hamedan Province as in many of the previous studies (Galli results, putting them in perspective. However, the find-
et al. 2014; Gan et al. 2011; Crishna 2007; Naderi Mahdei ings of the present study were compared with studies on
et al. 2015; Rezaei et al. 2019), diesel (fuel) consumption other crops. In their research on the environmental sus-
had a high energy consumption, leading eventually to a high tainability of potato and cucumber production in Bahar
EF (0.87 gha). However, contrary to the previous studies county, Iran, Rezaei et al. (2019) estimated their EF to
(Phong et al. 2010; Dong et al. 2013; Crishna 2007), the be 4.03 and 3.23 gha, respectively. In a study on the rela-
energy consumption of nitrogen fertilizer was higher than tionship between efficiency and agricultural sustainabil-
fuel, which might be due to aging diesel machinery and the ity in potato farms of Kaboudar Ahang County, Dashti
long working hours of the machinery used in cultivation and et al. (2019) reported that 84% of the potato farms were
harvesting, which are highly polluting. Given the high con- in unsustainable conditions. About the studies on other
sumption level of diesel, specific strategies can be put into crops, Naderi Mahdei et al. (2015) estimated the EF of
action, including the use of combined and advanced tools, wheat production in Hamedan Province, Iran, to be 2.84
and reducing the plowing operations. In addition, technical and 2.96 gha under conservative and conventional culture
inspection of agricultural machinery for lower and optimal practices, respectively. Lustigova and Kuskova (2006)
fuel consumption is recommended. reported EF of winter wheat production to be 1.309 and
Then, another critical factor that showed a significant 1.134 gha for organic and conventional farms, respec-
footprint (0.65 gha) and environmental impacts was chemi- tively. According to Cerutti et al. (2013), EF was esti-
cal fertilizers, the most important of which was nitrogen fer- mated to be 1.57, 1.61, and 3.05 gha for the production
tilizer used by potato growers for production. This result is of one ton of apple, apricot, and kiwifruit.
also consistent with the results of Dong et al. (2013), Rezaei
et al. (2019), Fallahpour et al. (2012), Naderi Mahdei et al.
(2015), and Esfahani et al. (2017). Yield‑Based Ecological Footprint
High consumption of fertilizers increases not only the
production costs but also environmental pollution by the Then, EF was evaluated based on the amount of potato pro-
emission of carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the envi- duction yield. With attention to the percentage of the carbon
ronment. In order to reduce the environmental impacts in coal and the percentage of coal output by plants, the yield-
of potato crop production, strategies regarding the high based EF was, on average, estimated at 5.9 gha.

13
 Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability

production per hectare. Accordingly, potato production is

( )
(40.43 × (0.314) × 0.85)
EPpotato = Σni=I = 5.9
1.8
The average EF of the potato was measured to be 5.9
gha. Based on the global footprint network, Iran’s biologi-
cal capacity has been estimated at 0.81. Thus, the calculated
value of EF is significantly different from Iran's biological
capacity. The results showed that the status of potato produc-
tion in the study area is ecologically unsustainable.
(10) in an unsustainable condition in terms of environmental
impacts.
As EFco2 is directly related to GHG emissions, the results
indicated that both diesel and chemical fertilizers were
important sources of GHG emissions in potato production
in the region. These results are consistent with the results
obtained from previous calculations of the study regarding
sustainability conditions.

Direct and Indirect Ecological Footprint Conclusion

As mentioned in “Methodology,” according to the method The main sources of on-system unsustainability are chemi-
presented for calculating direct and indirect EF, EF can be cal fertilizers, manures, and fuel. However, their optimum
considered the sum of real and virtual lands that are directly usage can reduce environmental pollutants. Research on the
and indirectly related to crop production and are required to agriculture sector in Iran emphasizes the high and inefficient
absorb carbon dioxide emitted during the crop production consumption pattern and the importance of reform in the
period. The results showed that the total footprint for potato use of chemical fertilizers (Mobtaker et al. 2012; Soltani
cultivation is 3.08 gha, as shown in Eq, 13, which consists et al. 2013). Improvement of the use of chemical fertiliz-
of a direct footprint of 2.51 gha (Eq. 11) and an indirect ers should be accompanied by conservation of the quality
footprint of 0.57 gha (Eq. 12). and quantity of the crop. Therefore, it should be planned
to move towards the efficient use of chemical fertilizers. It
EFdirect = 2.51 × 1 = 2.51 (11) should be noted that only a small part of mineral nitrogen
is absorbed by plants, whose precise amount depends upon
40.91Gj soil texture, temperature, and rainfall rate. Crop rotation
EFco2 = = 0.57 (12)
71Gj and water management modifications can play an effec-
tive role in enhancing fertilizers’ efficiency and reducing
EFtotal = 2.51 + 0.57 = 3.08 (13) the relevant environmental impacts (Safa and Samarasinghe
2012). We can conclude that soil, land, and other inputs
The indirect footprint was calculated according to inputs have been exploited without considering their externalities.
whose results are presented in Table 4. The table shows the In other words, the investigated area was strongly affected
results related to EFco2 for each input. by the farmers’ excessive use of chemicals (fertilizers and
As is evident in Table 4, in terms of indirect footprint, pesticides), high-yielding varieties, and the cultivation and
seed (0.18), diesel (0.16), and chemical fertilizers (0.14) harvesting machinery. Farmers have continuously destroyed
formed the highest values of EFco2 , respectively. their environment to gain higher profits.
EFCO2 was 0.57 gha. In other words, an area of 0.57 ha of Given that energy, land, and water resources in most
productive land is needed to absorb pollutants produced by farms are misused and overused, resource management must
potato cultivation or eliminate the ­CO2 footprint of potato become a dominant notion and planning priority for prac-
titioners and actors. As sustainability in itself has a holis-
tic nature, efficient management of farm resources would
Table 4  The indirect footprint in potato cultivation require economic, social, and external environmental fac-
Variable Energy (GJ) Indirect foot- tors that should be taken into account in all management
print (gha)* methods. This implies consideration of technical, economic,
social, institutional, and environmental issues in line with
Seed 13.47 0.18
the participation of all stakeholders in the decision-making
Machinery 1.67 0.02
process. Endogenous agricultural developments in general
Diesel 11.70 0.16
and participatory approaches in particular are to be recom-
Chemical fertilizers 10.30 0.14
mended. They have been developed to empower farmers
Organic fertilizers 3.01 0.04
by inducing positive change, which is in harmony with the
Poisons 0.74 0.01
ecological capacity. Local NGOs, self-help groups, and/
Total 40.89 0.57
or producer organizations, and local stakeholders need to
Indirect footprint estimated per hectare become more involved in agricultural management structure,

13
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability
from diagnosis and policy formulation to application of
farming practices. Participatory approaches will hopefully
lead to a decision-making structure that is more informed
and equipped to resolve problems and consequently more
accountable. The Iranian Ministry of Jihad of Agricul-
ture should prepare a comprehensive and detailed plan on
administrative and technical aspects of achieving sustainable
development in agriculture. In this proposed plan, optimiz-
ing the scheme for better use of pesticides and fertilizers,
increasing performance, and safeguarding the environment
by using sound technologies (organic-based, ecologically
sound manure system and internal input) will be necessary
to maintain soil productivity for the future. While there are
other solutions that could also be implemented, such as
enforced regulations, in the agricultural sector, it is difficult
to coerce regulations on “sustainable use and management”
of most natural resources. Therefore, extension systems
would have a critical role to play in transferring appro-
priate technologies, helping farmers learn the importance
and know-how of sustainable land, soil, and water utiliza-
tion practices, and then maintaining the natural resources.
Meanwhile, most farmers are not sufficiently aware of their
actions’ consequences. Diversification of the rural economy
(such as introducing off-farm businesses) is another comple-
mentary recommendation that could be offered to prevent
excessive degradation of soil resources. However, research
on how to put the recommendations of this study into action
can complete the sustainability assessment process.
Finally the research had several limitations such as:
1- The traditional and non-environmental governance of
agriculture, developed, and developing puts many eco-
nomic limitations to the environmental sustainability
solutions proposed. A sustainable solution that does not
result to self-sufficiency and economic growth will not
be applied and support by public policies, so public poli-
cies does not support environmental sustainability in the
potato production.
2- In technological aspect, recently not all emerging tech-
nologies take the concept of environmental sustainabil-
ity into consideration. And no technology (even clean
energy technologies) is fully sustainable in the agricul-
tural sector.
3- In the social aspect, the majority of the public and
farmers, especially in rural area, has the least awareness
about the importance of environmental sustainability.
Acknowledgements  The authors are grateful for the occasion of the
study and for the institutional support provided by the extension admin-
istration of the Hamedan Jihad of Agriculture Organization. Thanks go
also to the respondents who completed the questionnaires accurately
and made the project possible. Finally, we would like to thank two
anonymous referees.
Data Availability  As we have mentioned in “Methodology,” data were
collected on farmers’ personal and technical characteristics (age,
income, the amount of input consumption, etc.). After gathering and
encoding the raw data obtained via the questionnaire, they were ana-
lyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS26).
So, our datasets are very large and consist of too many files. Mean-
while, all files already exist and the datasets generated and analyzed
during the study are available from the corresponding author upon
request.
Declarations 
Conflict of Interest  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Abdolmaleky M, Chizari M, Hoseini JF, Homaee M (2011) Factors
affecting farmers’ engagement to co-management of watershed
conservation programs in Hamedan Province, Iran. World Appl
Sci J 12:1307–1313
Abdul Murad SM, Hashim H, Jusoh M, Zakaria ZY (2019) Sustainabil-
ity assessment framework: a mini review of assessment concept.
Chem Eng Trans 7:379–384
Agostinho F, Pereira L (2013) Support area as an indicator of envi-
ronmental load: comparison between embodied emergy, eco-
logical footprint, and energy accounting methods. Ecol Indic
24:494–503
AkifDestek M, Sarkodie AS (2019) Investigation of environmental
Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and
financial development. Sci Total Environ 650(2):2483–2489.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​10.​017
Anielski M, Wilson J (2010) Environmental foot printing for agricul-
ture in Alberta: literature review and analysis. Edmonton, Alberta
Ashvin Kumar M, Tikendra Kumar Y (2019) What is ecological foot-
print and why is it important. AGROBIOS newsletter. Mon Mag
Agric Biol Sci 18:25–26
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Navigating social-ecological sys-
tems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Canakci M, Akinci I (2006) Energy use pattern analysis of greenhouse
vegetable production. Energy 31:1243–1256
Cerutti AK, Beccaro GI, Bagliani M, Donno D, Bounous G (2013)
Multifunctional ecological footprint analysis for assessing eco-
efficiency: a case study of fruit production systems in Northern
Italy. J Clean Prod 40:108–117
Cetin B, Vardar A (2008) An economic analysis of energy requirements
and input costs for tomato production in Turkey. Renew Energy
33:428–433
Cheng K, Pan G, Smith P, Luo T, Li L, Zheng J, Zhang X, Han X, Yan
M (2011) Carbon footprint of Chinas crop production: an esti-
mation using agro-statistics data over 1993–2007. Agric Ecosyst
Environ 142:231–237
Cheng K, Yan M, Nayak D, Pan G, Smith P, Zheng J, Zheng J (2015)
Carbon footprint of crop production in China: an analysis of
National Statistics data. J Agric Sci 153:422–431
Crishna N (2007) Review and application of the ecological footprint: a
case study of agricultural systems in Scotland. Dissertation, Uni-
versity of Edinburgh
Dashti Q, PourMoradi M, Hayati B (2019) Relationship between
agricultural efficiency and sustainability in potato fields in
Kabudar Ahang city. Agric Knowl Sustain Prod 29:181–192
(In Persian)
13

Demircan V, Ekinci K, Keener HM, Akbolat D, Ekinci C (2006) Energy
and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case
study from Isparta province. Energ Conver Manage 47:1761–1769
Dong G, Mao X, Zhou J, Zeng A (2013) Carbon footprint accounting
and dynamics and the driving forces of agricultural production in
Zhejiang Province China. J Ecol Econ 91:38–47
Esengun K, Erdal G, Gunduz O, Erdal H (2007) An economic analysis
and energy use in stake tomato production in Tokat province of
Turkey. Renew Energy 32:1873–1881
Esfahani SMJ, Naderi Mahdei K, Saadi H, Dourandish A (2017)
Efficiency and sustainability of silage corn production by data
envelopment analysis and multi-functional ecological footprint:
evidence from Sarayan County. J Agric Sci Tech 19:1453–1468
Fallahpour FA, Behbahani AG, Bannayan M (2012) The environmen-
tal impact assessment of wheat and barley production by using
life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. J Sustain Dev Environ
14:979–992
Fatemi M, Rezaei Moghaddam K, Wackernagel M, Shennan C (2018)
Sustainability of environmental management in Iran: an ecological
footprint analysis. Iran Agric Resour 37:53–68
Galli A, Wackernagel MIK, Lazarus E (2014) Ecological footprint:
implications for biodiversity. Bio Conserv 173:1–12
Gan Y, Liang C, Wang X, McConkey B (2011) Lowering carbon foot-
print of durum wheat by diversifying cropping systems. Field
Crops Resour 122:199–206
Gharkhloo M, Pourkhbaz H, Amiri M, Faraji SH (2009) Assessing
the ecological potential of Qazvin region to determine potential
points of urban development using GIS. Urban Reg Stud Resour
1:68–51 (In Persian)
Gonzalez-Vallejo P, Marrero M, Solis-Guzman J (2015) The ecological
footprint of dwelling construction in Spain. Ecol Indic 52:75–84
Guzman J, Marrero M, Arellano A (2013) Methodology for deter-
mining the ecological footprint of the construction of residential
buildings in Andalusia (Spain). Ecol Indic 25:239–249
Habibi K, Ghaderi A, Asadi J, Rahimi A (2018) Assessing the level of
sustainability of informal neighborhoods using ecological foot-
print model Case study: Abbasabad neighborhood of Sanandaj. J
Urban Stud 26:89–98 (In Persian)
Hamedan Jihad of Agriculture Organization (2021) Potato production.
Slamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). https://w ​ ww.i​ rna.i​ r/n​ ews/​
84416​443/. Accessed 2 June 2021
Heidarzadeh M, Jafari H, Varamiti AH, Khoshtam H (2006) Environ-
mental impact assessment of urban projects an approach to sus-
tainable urban development Sixth Biennial National Conference
of the Iranian Association of Environmental Specialists.Tehran,
Iran. (In Persian)
Huijbregts MA, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hungerbühler K, Hendriks
AJ (2008) Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assess-
ment of products. Ecol Econ 64:897–708
Iyyapazham S (2007) Managing water resources in agriculture and
watersheds: modeling using GIS and dynamic simulation. Dis-
sertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Khorramdel S, Abolhassani L, Rahmati E (2016) Environmental
impacts assessment of saffron agro ecosystems using life cycle
assessment methodology: case study: Torbat- e Heydarieh and
Ghaen counties. J Saffron Resour 4:229–248 (In Persian)
Khosruzzaman S, Asgar MA, Karim N, Akbar S (2010) Energy inten-
sity and productivity in relation to agriculture– Bangladesh per-
spective. J Agric Technol 6(4):615–630
Kissinger M, Gottlieb D (2012) From global to place oriented hectares:
the case of Israel’s wheat ecological footprint and its implication
for sustainable resource supply. Ecol Indic 16:51–57
Kitzes J, Peller A, Goldfinger S, Wackernagel M (2007) Current meth-
ods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts. Sci
Environ Sustain Soc 4:1–9
13
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability
Kouchaki A, Nasiri MM, Mansouri H, Moradi R (2015) Assessing
agricultural sustainability in Iran with a comparative advantage
approach. Agric Econ Dev 23:29–54
Li H, Zeng Pei D, Chunyu H, Gang W (2010) Evaluating the effects of
embodied energy in international trade on ecological footprint in
China preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand.
Land Use Policy 78:227–235
Lim A (2020) What is ecological footprint? Definition and how to
calculate it sustainability for all. A newsletter published by Tree-
hugger. https://​www.​treeh​ugger.​com/​what-​is-​ecolo​gical-​footp​
rint-​45802​44. Accessed 10 Aug 2020
Lima RS, de Azevedo C-P, Cardoso AN (2020) Uncertainty analysis
in life cycle assessments applied to biorefineries systems: a criti-
cal review of the literature. Process Integr Optim Sustain 4:1–13.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41660-​019-​00103-9
Lustigova L, Kuskova P (2006) Ecological footprint in the organic
farming system. Agric Econ 52:503–509
Mamouni Limnios EA, Ghadouani AGM, Schilizzi S, Mazzarol T
(2009) Giving the consumer the choice: a methodology for prod-
uct ecological footprint calculation. Ecol Econ 68:2525–2534
Meisterling K, Samaras C, Schweizer V (2009) Decisions to reduce
greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA
case study of organic and conventional wheat. Clean Prod
17:222–230
Mobtaker HG, Akram A, Keyhani A (2012) Energy use and sensitivity
analysis of energy inputs for alfalfa production in Iran. Energy
Sustain Dev 16:84–89
Moore D (2011) Ecological footprint analysis: San Francisco-Oakland-
Fremont, CA. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, California,
United States of America, pp 1–15
Mohammadi A, Rafiee S, Jafari A, Keyhani A, Mousavi ASH, Non-
hebel S (2014) Energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emis-
sions of farming systems in North Iran. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 30:724–733
Naderi Mahdei K, Bahrami A, Aazami M, Sheklabadi M (2015)
Assessment of agricultural farming systems sustainability in
Hamedan Province using ecological footprint analysis (case study:
irrigated wheat). J Agric Sci Tech 17:1409–1420
Nikkhah A, Taheri Rad A, Khojastehpour M, Emadi B, Peyman SH
(2014) Environmental impacts of peanut production in Gilan prov-
ince. Agric Ecol 6:373–382
Ostad-Ali-Askari K (2022) Management of risks substances and sus-
tainable development. Appl Water Sci 12(65):1–23. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​021-​01562-7
Ostad-Ali-Askari K et al (2017) Deficit irrigation: optimization models.
Management of drought and water scarcity. Handbook of Drought
and Water Scarcity 3, pp 373–389. Taylor & Francis Publisher.
Imprint: CRC Press. eBook ISBN: 9781315226774. 1st Edition.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1201/​97813​15226​774
Ostad-Ali-Askari K, Shayannejad M, Ghorbanizadeh-Kharazi H
(2017) Artificial neural network for modeling nitrate pollution
of groundwater in marginal area of Zayandeh-rood River, Isfa-
han, Iran. KSCE J Civ Eng 21:134–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12205-​016-​0572-8
Ozkan B, Kurklu A, Akcaoz H (2004) An input-output energy analy-
sis in greenhouse vegetable production: a case study for Antalya
region of Turkey. Biomass Bioenergy 26:95–189
Pakizeh P (2021) Potato production in Hamedan. Iranian Student’s
News Agency (ISNA). https://​www.​isna.​ir/​photo/​14000​42216​
187/. Accessed 10 June 2021
Passeri N, Borucke M, Blasi E, Franco S, Lazarus E (2013) The influ-
ence of farming technique on cropland: a new approach for the
ecological footprint. Ecol Indic 29:1–5
Phong L, Vandan A, Udo H, Mensvoort M, Tri L, Steenstra F, Zijpp A
(2010) An Agro-ecological evaluation of aquaculture integration
Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability
into farming systems of the Mekong Delta. Agric Ecosyst Environ
138:232–241
Rees WE, Wackernagel M (1996) Urban ecological footprints: why
cities cannot be sustainable - and why they are a key to sustain-
ability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16:223–248
Rezaei P, Naderi Mehdi K, Karimi S, Shanazi K (2019) Assessing the
ecological sustainability of the crop system using ecological foot-
print analysis (case study: potato and cucumber cultivation in Sefal-
garan village of Bahar city). J Agric Knowl Sustain Prod 29:53–66
Safa M, Samarasinghe S (2012) CO2 emissions from farm inputs: case
study of wheat production in canterbury, New Zealand. Environ
Pollut 171:126–132
Solis-Guzman J, Marrero M, Ramirezde-Arellano A (2013) Methodol-
ogy for determining the ecological footprint of the construction of
residential buildings in Andalusia (Spain). Ecol Indic 25:239–249
Soltani A, Rajabi MH, Zeinali E, Soltani E (2013) Energy inputs and
greenhouse gases emissions in wheat production in Gorgan. Iran
Energy 50:54–61
Taghdisi A, Besagh MR (2012) Analysis and evaluation of agricultural
sustainability in rural areas and investigating the role of farmers
Case study: rural areas in Azna Township). Geography 10:129–147
(In Persian)
Talebmorad H, Ahmadnejad A, Eslamian S, Ostad-Ali-Askari K, Singh
VP (2020) Evaluation of uncertainty in evapotranspiration values
by FAO56-Penman-Monteith and Hargreaves-Samani methods.
Int J Hydrol Sci Technol 10(2):135–147
Tittonell P, Giller K (2013) When yield gaps are poverty traps: the
paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder
agriculture. Field Crop Resour 143:76–90
Toth G, Szigeti C, Harangozo G, Szabo D (2018) Ecological footprint
at the micro-scale how it can save costs: the case of ENPRO.
Resources 7:1–14
Trigo A, Marta-Costa A, Fragoso R (2021) Principles of sustainable
agriculture: defining standardized reference points. J Sustain 2:1–20
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2016) Global
greenhouse gas emissions data. https://​w ww.​e pa.​g ov/​g hgem​
issio​ns/​global-​green​house-​gas-​emiss​ionsd​ata#​Sector. Accessed
10 June 2016
View publication stats
Van den Bergh JCJM, Grazi F (2014) Ecological footprint policy? Land
use as an environmental indicator. J Ind Ecol 18:10–19
Van der Werf HMG, Turnen L (2008) The environmental impacts
of the production of hemp and flax textile yarn. Ind Crop Prod
27:1–10
Van der Werf HG, Tzilivakis J, Lewis K, Basset-Mens C (2007) Envi-
ronmental impacts of farm scenarios according to five assessment
methods. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:327–338
Virapongse A, Brooks S, Metcalf EC, Zedalis M, Gosz J, Kliskey A,
Alessa L (2016) A social-ecological systems approach for envi-
ronmental management. J Environ Manag 178:83–91
Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing
human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers Gabriola
Island, British Columbia
Wackernagel M, Monfreda C, Erb K-H, Haberl H, Schulz NB (2004)
Ecological footprint time series of Austria the Philippines
and South Korea for 1961–1999: comparing the conventional
approach to an actual land area approach. Land Use Policy
21:261–269
Yarali N, Soltani A, Jafari A, Mafi Gholami D, Mahmoudi M (2011)
Evaluation of environmental impact of development (EIA) on
Oshtrankoh protected area using damage model. Environ Resour
1:13–22
Yilmaz I, Ozkan AH, B, (2005) An analysis of energy use and
input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renew Energy
30:145–155
Zangeneh M, Omid M, Akram A (2010) A comparative study on
energy use and cost analysis of potato production under differ-
ent farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy
35:2927–2933
Zhang X, Yin S, Li Y, Zhuang H, Li C, Liu C (2014) Comparison of
greenhouse gas emissions from rice paddy fields under different
nitrogen fertilization loads in Chongming Island, Eastern China.
Sci Environ 472:381–388
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13