10.1007/s40095-022-00482-9

Balancing environmental impacts and economic benefits of agriculture under the climate change through an integrated optimization system

  1. College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, AU
  2. Environmental Science Research Institute, Tehran, IR
Cover Image

Published in Issue 2022-02-24

How to Cite

Sedighkia, M., & Abdoli, A. (2022). Balancing environmental impacts and economic benefits of agriculture under the climate change through an integrated optimization system. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 13(3 (September 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-022-00482-9

HTML views: 3

PDF views: 53

Abstract

Abstract The present study proposes a framework to mitigate impact of climate change on the rice production by maximizing the yield while the energy use and ecological impacts on the river ecosystem as the irrigation source are mitigated. Coupled general circulation model- soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) was utilized to project the impact of climate change on the stream flow. Fuzzy physical habitat simulation was applied to develop the ecological impact function of the river. Moreover, a data-driven model was developed to predict the rice yield through changing water and energy consumption. Finally, all the simulations were utilized in the structure of the optimization model in which minimizing loss of the production, greenhouse gas emission by reducing energy use and physical habitat loss were considered as the objectives. Based on the results, the Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient of the SWAT is 0.7 that demonstrates its reliability for simulating the impact of climate change on river flow. The optimization model is able to reduce the impact of climate change on yield of production by balancing water and energy use. In the most pessimistic scenario, water use should approximately be reduced 25% for protecting river ecosystem. However, the optimization model approximately increased energy use 16% for preserving the yield of the rice. Conversely, model decreased the energy use 40% compared with the current condition due to increasing water supply. Moreover, physical habitat loss is less than 50% that means the combined optimization model is able to protect river habitats properly.

Keywords

  • Optimal rice production,
  • Agricultural energy use,
  • Climate change impacts,
  • River habitat suitability,
  • Irrigation supply

References

  1. Xie et al. (2018) Gobi agriculture: an innovative farming system that increases energy and water use efficiencies 38(6) (pp. 1-16) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0540-4
  2. Nhamo et al. (2018) The water-energy-food nexus: climate risks and opportunities in southern Africa 10(5) https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050567
  3. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al. (2018) Application of data envelopment analysis approach for optimization of energy use and reduction of greenhouse gas emission in peanut production of Iran (pp. 1327-1335) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.282
  4. Sedighkia, M., Datta, B., Abdoli, A.: Minimizing physical habitat impacts at downstream of diversion dams by a multiobjective optimization of environmental flow regime. Environ. Model. Softw
  5. 140
  6. .105029 (2021)
  7. Ilahi et al. (2019) Optimization approach for improving energy efficiency and evaluation of greenhouse gas emission of wheat crop using data envelopment analysis 11(12) https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123409
  8. Khalili-Damghani et al. (2015) A dynamic multi-stage data envelopment analysis model with application to energy consumption in the cotton industry (pp. 320-328) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.020
  9. Taghavifar and Mardani (2015) Prognostication of energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis of apple production in West Azarbayjan of Iran using artificial neural network (pp. 159-167) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.054
  10. Kazemi et al. (2015) Energy flow analysis for rice production in different geographical regions of Iran (pp. 390-396) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.005
  11. Koç (2015) A study on the role and importance of irrigation management in integrated river basin management 187(8) (pp. 1-20) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4647-7
  12. Postel (1998) Water for food production: will there be enough in 2025? 48(8) (pp. 629-637) https://doi.org/10.2307/1313422
  13. Yarnell et al. (2020) A functional flows approach to selecting ecologically relevant flow metrics for environmental flow applications 36(2) (pp. 318-324) https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3575
  14. Suwal et al. (2020) Environmental flows assessment in Nepal: the case of Kaligandaki River 12(21) https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218766
  15. Tharme (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers 19(5–6) (pp. 397-441) https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.736
  16. Sedighkia, M., Abdoli, A., Datta, B.: Optimizing monthly ecological flow regime by a coupled fuzzy physical habitat simulation–genetic algorithm method. Environ. Syst. Decis. Pp 1–12
  17. Nalamothu, R., 2021. PHABSIM/SEFA Application for Minimum Flows and Levels Development in Florida. Journal of Strategic Innovation & Sustainability, 16(1).
  18. Noack, M., Schneider, M. and Wieprecht, S., 2013. The Habitat modelling system CASiMiR: a multivariate fuzzy-approach and its applications. Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach, pp.75–91.
  19. Railsback (2016) Why it is time to put PHABSIM out to pasture 41(12) (pp. 720-725) https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2016.1245991
  20. Middelkoop et al. (2001) Impact of climate change on hydrological regimes and water resources management in the Rhine basin 49(1) (pp. 105-128) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010784727448
  21. Mendelsohn and Saher (2011) World Bank
  22. Mohammadi et al. (2020) Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system coupled with shuffled frog leaping algorithm for predicting river streamflow time series 65(10) (pp. 1738-1751) https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1758703
  23. Morid et al. (2016) Impact assessment of climate change on environmental flows by using hydrological indicators-case study of Kordan River 69(4) (pp. 1109-1127)
  24. Bayatvarkeshi et al. (2020) Investigation into the effects of climate change on reference evapotranspiration using the HadCM3 and LARS-WG 12(3) https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030666
  25. Bala and Kumar (2017) Classification using ANN: a review 13(7) (pp. 1811-1820)
  26. Salleh, M.N.M., Talpur, N., Hussain, K. (2017) Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system: overview, strengths, limitations, and solutions. In: International conference on data mining and big data (pp. 527–535). Springer, Cham.
  27. Nazarenko et al. (2015) Future climate change under RCP emission scenarios with GISS M odelE2 7(1) (pp. 244-267) https://doi.org/10.1002/2014MS000403
  28. Sha et al. (2019) Estimation of future climate change in cold weather areas with the LARS-WG model under CMIP5 scenarios 137(3) (pp. 3027-3039) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-019-02781-4
  29. Ul Hasson et al. (2016) Seasonal cycle of precipitation over major river basins in South and Southeast Asia: a review of the CMIP5 climate models data for present climate and future climate projections (pp. 42-63) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.05.008
  30. Pradhan, P., Tingsanchali, T., Shrestha, S.: Evaluation of soil and water assessment tool and artificial neural network models for hydrologic simulation in different climatic regions of Asia. Sci. Total Environ.
  31. 701
  32. (2020)
  33. Jain, N.K., Nangia, U., Jain, J., 2018. A review of particle swarm optimization. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series B, 99(4), pp.407–411.
  34. Poff and Zimmerman (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows 55(1) (pp. 194-205) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x
  35. Brassington, G., 2017, April. Mean absolute error and root mean square error: which is the better metric for assessing model performance?. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (p. 3574).
  36. McCuen et al. (2006) Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency index 11(6) (pp. 597-602) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:6(597)
  37. Gassman et al. (2007) The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions 50(4) (pp. 1211-1250) https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23637
  38. Awan and Bae (2014) Improving ANFIS based model for long-term dam inflow prediction by incorporating monthly rainfall forecasts 28(5) (pp. 1185-1199) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0512-7
  39. Abbaspour et al. (2015) A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model (pp. 733-752) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027
  40. Morid et al. (2019) Impact assessment of climate change on environmental flow component and water temperature—Kikuchi River 4(2) (pp. 88-105) https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2019.1663713
  41. Mouton et al. (2009) Knowledge-based versus data-driven fuzzy habitat suitability models for river management 24(8) (pp. 982-993) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.02.005
  42. Muñoz-Mas et al. (2012) Assessment of brown trout habitat suitability in the Jucar River Basin (SPAIN): comparison of data-driven approaches with fuzzy-logic models and univariate suitability curves (pp. 123-131) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.074
  43. Yi et al. (2017) Evaluating the ecological influence of hydraulic projects: a review of aquatic habitat suitability models (pp. 748-762) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.138
  44. Piniewski et al. (2014) Effect of climate change on environmental flow indicators in the Narew Basin, Poland 43(1) (pp. 155-167) https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0386