Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production in Chongming ecological island

  • Shun Li
  • Beijia HuangEmail author
  • Feng Zhao
  • Zhibo LuEmail author
  • Xiangyu Wang
  • Xian Chen
  • Yanxi Chen



Evaluate environmental load of the agriculture industry by taking Chongming Island of Shanghai as a case study. Propose feasible approaches to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture industry based on the research findings.


The research boundary of our study covers from raw material extraction to agriculture product (cradle to product). Two stages are identified based on life cycle thinking: agricultural material production and planting process. In the agriculture material stage, we evaluated the consumption of agricultural machinery and equipment for diesel, gasoline and electricity; then, the embodied environmental impact of these energy sources are calculated based on life cycle assessment (LCA). For the planting stage, we calculated the environmental impact caused by agriculture sowing, fertilizing, and spraying of pesticides also according to the LCA method.

Results and discussion

The environmental impacts of Chongming Island in 2015 are found as ecosystem damage (2.44E+11 species year), human health (2.86E+10 DALY), and resources consumption (1.15E+09 $). The primary environmental impacts in the agricultural material production stage are revealed as marine ecological toxicity (1.01E+06), freshwater eutrophication (5.26E+05), and human toxicity (4.04E+05), of which 90% of the impacts are caused by the production of nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, and potassium fertilizer. The main environmental impacts in the agricultural planting stage are freshwater ecotoxicity (1.27E+06), freshwater eutrophication (7.70E+05), and terrestrial ecotoxicity (7.70E+05), which are mainly caused by pesticide residues and loss of nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, and potassium fertilizer.


The results of the environmental impact analysis of the Chongming agricultural production of 2008–2015 showed that there was a significant decline trend in 2011 and 2012, mainly due to the significant reduction in the use of nitrogen fertilizer. The main measures for the practitioner to reduce the potential ecological damage to agricultural production are controlling the N, P, and K fertilizer application and pesticide spray volume. In addition, the ecological environment can be improved by exploring techniques and measures for efficient utilization of agricultural resources such as optimizing the amount of fertilizer and application rate.


Agricultural production Environmental impact evaluation Fertilizer Life cycle assessment Pesticide 



The research work is supported by grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71403170). Zhibo Lu is financially supported by the Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (No. 15DZ1208103).

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1614_MOESM1_ESM.docx (41 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 41 kb)


  1. Bartl K, Verones F, Hellweg S (2012) Life cycle assessment based evaluation of regional impacts from agricultural production at the peruvian coast. Environ Sci Technol 46(18):9872–9880Google Scholar
  2. Brentrup F, Kusters J, Kuhlmann H et al (2004) Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment method I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to agriculture production. Eur J Agron 20(3):247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chong T, Li M, Ai-qing W et al (2007) Calculation and analysis of agricultural ecological footprint in Bashang area of Hebei Province. J Chin Soc Eco-Agric 15(3):151–154 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  4. Chongming Statistical Yearbook (2016) Shanghai Chongming County Bureau of Statistics. (in Chinese)
  5. Cowell SJ, Clift R (1997) Impact assessment for LCAs involving agricultural production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(2):99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, 1st edn. Report I: characterisation, pp 1–126Google Scholar
  7. Heinonen J, Säynäjoki A, Junnonen JM, Pöyry A, Junnila S (2016) Pre-use phase lca of a multi-story residential building: can greenhouse gas emissions be used as a more general environmental performance indicator? Build Environ 95:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang B, Mauerhofer V (2016) Low carbon technology assessment and planning case analysis of building sector in Chongming, Shanghai. Renew Energ 86:324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang B, Zhao F, Fishman T (2018) Building material use and associated environmental impacts in China 2000–2015. Environ Sci Technol 52(23):14006–14014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Zijp M, Hollander A, van Zelm R (2017) Recipe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(2):138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO 14040 (2006) International standard. In: Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. International Organization for Normalization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. Jungbluth N, Büsser S, Frischknecht R, Flury K, Stucki M (2012) Feasibility of environmental product information based on life cycle thinking and recommendations for Switzerland. J Clean Prod 28:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khoshnevisan B, Shafiei M, Rajaeifar MA, Tabatabaei M (2016) Biogas and bioethanol production from pinewood pre-treated with steam explosion and n-methylmorpholine-n-oxide (nmmo): a comparative life cycle assessment approach. Energy 114:935–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klöpffer W, Grahl B (2016) Life cycle assessment (LCA): a guide to best practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1063–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011) Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis KA, Bardon KS (1998) A computer-based environmental management system for agriculture. Environ Model Softw 13(2):123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ma Z (2008) Effects of heavy metals on farmland soil and agricultural product safety and its management evaluation system. China Agricultural University, Beijing, pp 54–72 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Mishima S, Tanoiguchi S, Komada M (2005) Adaptation of life cycle assessment (LCA) to agricultural production on a regional scale in Japan. Trans Ecol Environ.
  19. Owsianiak M, Laurent A, Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2014) IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe 2008 and ILCD’s recommended practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment: a case study-based comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(5):1007–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paolotti L, Boggia A, Castellini C, Rocchi L, Rosati A (2016) Combining livestock and tree crops to improve sustainability in agriculture: a case study using the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. J Clean Prod 131:351–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peng X, Wu X, Wu F et al (2015) Life cycle assessment of winter wheat summer maize rotation system in Guanzhong region of Shaanxi. J Agro Environ Sci 4:809–816 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  22. Poritosh R, Daisuke N, Takahiro O et al (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rigby D, Woodhouse P, Young T, Burton M (2001) Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol Econ 39:463–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. The First National Pollution Source Census Leading Group Office (2009) The first national pollution source census: agricultural pollution source fertilizer loss coefficient manual. the State Council, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. Tolle DA (1997) Regional scaling and normalization in LCIA. Development and application of methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang X, Zhao X, Wang Y et al (2017) Carbon footprint analysis of rice production in China. Resour Sci 39(4):713–722 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. Yang Y, Lin W (2015) Environmental impact assessment of different maize planting patterns—based on LCA. Agric Mech Res 12:1–6 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and ArchitectureUniversity of Shanghai for Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina
  2. 2.College of Environmental Science & EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations