Abstract
Agricultural production constitutes a primary source of rural income in the Sistan region, with its sustainability contingent upon the ecological resilience of both agricultural systems and their supporting ecosystems. In this study, we employed emergy footprint analysis as a methodological framework to assess the ecological sustainability of diverse cropping systems—including wheat, barley, corn (grain and forage), alfalfa, canola, watermelon, melon, mung bean, lentil, onion, garlic, fennel, cumin, and black seed—using data from the 2021 agricultural year. Input and output data were collected through farmer interviews and meteorological records using a stratified random sampling approach. By converting material and energy flows into solar emjoules (sej), we evaluated key sustainability indicators: emergy biocapacity (EBC), emergy footprint (EFP), ecological surplus/deficit (EED/EES), ecological pressure index (EPI), ecological footprint intensity (EFI), and the ecological-economic coordination index (EECI). These indicators collectively provide a comprehensive assessment of the balance between ecological supply and human demand. Results revealed substantial variability across counties and crop types. Wheat production in Zahak exhibited the highest emergy carrying capacity, while mung bean in Hamoun showed the lowest. Wheat systems in Zahak also demonstrated the largest ecological footprint due to elevated input consumption. Notably, Zahak wheat production showed the greatest ecological surplus, whereas grain corn production in Hirmand was characterized by robust safety margins. Comparative analysis across counties identified garlic production in four counties and wheat in Hirmand as ecologically deficit systems under high pressure, whereas grain corn in Hirmand and green cumin in other counties emerged as more sustainable alternatives. These findings highlight a lack of ecological and economic balance across most examined systems. The emergy footprint framework proves effective for diagnosing sustainability challenges, and we recommend enhanced resource efficiency—particularly through precision nutrient management and location-specific guidelines—to mitigate both ecological and economic costs in these systems.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Raw data include farmer interview responses, meteorological records, and calculated emergy tables, subject to confidentiality agreements with participants. The detailed emergy calculation datasets supporting the findings of this study, including all raw inputs, transformities, and intermediate calculations, are available in the Supplementary Data File (Data S1) submitted with this manuscript.
References
Amiri, Z. et al. Conservation agriculture: A selective model based on emergy analysis for sustainable production of shallot as a medicinal-industrial plant. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 126000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126000 (2021).
Angel, J. & Acevedo, A. Sustainability assessment of agricultural production systems in the Sistan region using emergy footprint analysis. Energy Ecol. Environ. 3(6), 271–284 (2018).
Brown, M. T. & Ulgiati, S. Emergy assessment of global renewable sources. Ecol. Model. 339, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.03.010 (2016).
Brown, M. T., Campbell, D. E., De Vilbiss, C. & Ulgiati, S. The geobiosphere emergy baseline: A synthesis. Ecol. Model. 339, 92–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.03.018 (2016).
Chen, B. & Chen, G. Q. Ecological footprint accounting based on emergy: A case study of the Chinese society. Ecol. Model. 198(1–2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.04.022 (2006).
Chu, X. X., Deng, G., Jin, Z., Wang, Z. & Li, J. Ecological security assessment based on ecological footprint approach in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China. Phys. Chem. Earth 101, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2017.05.001 (2017).
Cochran, W. G. Sampling theory when the sampling units are of unequal sizes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 37(218), 199–212 (1942).
Enayat, F. F. & Asgharipour, M. R. Exploring and predicting the biocapacity of various fish farming systems based on modified emergy footprint accounting in the Sistan region of Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 904, 166195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166195 (2023).
Enayat, F. F., Asgharipour, M. R., Ghanbari, A. & Sayadabadi, E. Emergy ecological footprint analysis of Yaghooti grape production in the Sistan Region of Iran. Ecol. Model. 481, 110332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110332 (2023).
Fang, K., Heijungs, R. & de Snoo, G. R. Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: Overview of a footprint family. Ecol. Indic. 36, 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.017 (2014).
FAO. (2014). Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture: Principles and approaches. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Gamelin, F. X. et al. Effect of high intensity intermittent training on heart rate variability in prepubescent children. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 105(5), 731–738 (2009).
Giljum, S., Lutz, C., Jungnitz, A., Bruckner, M. & Hinterberger, F. Applications of the ecological footprint methodology in European Union policy-making. In Handbook of Input-Output Economics in Industrial Ecology (ed. Suh, S.) 813–832 (Springer, 2007).
Gössling, S., Hansson, C. B., Horstmeier, O. & Saggel, S. Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 43(2–3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00211-2 (2002).
Kanitschar, H., Kollmann, R. & Winiwarter, V. Ecological footprint: A tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.050 (2014).
Li, J. X., Chen, Y. N., Xu, C. C. & Li, Z. Evaluation and analysis of ecological security in arid areas of Central Asia based on the emergy ecological footprint (EEF) model. J. Clean. Prod. 235, 664–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.005 (2019).
Liu, Y., Ibrahim, J. A. & Sin, F. Y. Emergy-based valuation for agricultural ecosystem in Shangri-La County, tourism region in Yunnan Province, China. Energy Rep. 8, 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.102 (2022).
Mokhtari, V. Ecological emergy footprint of some agricultural products in Iran. Ferdowsi Univ. Mashhad J. Agric. Sci. 12(3), 123–135 (2016).
Odum, H. T. Emergy in ecosystems. In Ecosystem Theory and Application (ed. Polunin, N.) 3–18 (John Wiley & Sons, 1986).
Odum, H. T. & Peterson, N. Simulation and evaluation with energy systems blocks. Ecol. Model. 93(1–3), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(95)00221-9 (1996).
Pan, H., Zhuang, M., Geng, Y. & Wu, F. Emergy-based ecological footprint analysis for a mega-city: The dynamic changes of Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.064 (2018).
Peng, W., Wang, X., Li, X. & He, C. Sustainability evaluation based on the emergy ecological footprint method: A case study of Qingdao, China, from 2004 to 2014. Ecol. Indic. 85, 1249–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.020 (2018).
Perez, M. A. P. International trade in Colombia: Look from the ecological economy. Univ. Valle J. Econ. 15(2), 45–60 (2007).
Piri, H. & Ansari, H. Study of drought in Sistan Plain and its impact on Hamoun international wetland. J. Wetland Ecobiol. 5(17), 63–74 (2013).
Pretty, J. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363(1491), 447–465 (2008).
Shayan, H., Bouzarjomehri, K. & Mirlotfi, M. The study of the role of agriculture in rural development: Miyankangi district in Sistan. J. Geogr. Reg. Dev. 8(14), 15–30 (2010).
Shirdeli, M. R., Asgharipour, M. R., Ramroudi, M., Ghanbari, S. A. & Sirousmehr, A. Ecological security assessment of rice production systems in arid regions: A multi-criteria assessment of Iranshahr and Saravan, Iran. Sci. Rep. 15(1), 22919. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06858-1 (2025).
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. Statistical Methods 7th edn. (Iowa State University Press, 1980).
Van Beek, E., Bozorgy, B., Vekerdy, Z. & Meijer, K. Limits to agricultural growth in the Sistan closed inland delta, Iran. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 22(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10795-008-9045-7 (2008).
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report) (Oxford University Press, 1987).
Xie, B., Zhang, X., Lu, J., Liu, F. & Fan, Y. Research on ecological evaluation of Shanghai port logistics based on emergy ecological footprint models. Ecol. Indic. 139, 108916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108916 (2022).
Yang, Q. et al. Quantitative analysis of the dynamic changes of ecological security in the provinces of China through emergy-ecological footprint hybrid indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 184, 678–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.271 (2018).
Yao, X., Chen, W., Song, C. & Gao, S. Sustainability and efficiency of water-land-energy-food nexus based on emergy-ecological footprint and data envelopment analysis: Case of an important agriculture and ecological region in Northeast China. J. Clean. Prod. 379, 134857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134857 (2022).
Zhang, X., Xu, L., Chen, Y. & Liu, T. Emergy-based ecological footprint analysis of a wind farm in China. Ecol. Indic. 111, 106018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106018 (2020).
Zhao, S., Li, Z. & Li, A. A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application. Ecol. Model. 185(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.11.016 (2005).
Zhao, S. et al. The emergy ecological footprint for small fish farm in China. Ecol. Indic. 29, 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.009 (2013).
Acknowledgements
The corresponding author gratefully acknowledges the financial support from University of Zabol (Grant No. IR-UOZ-GR-6673). We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for very helpful comments and suggestions of the manuscript
Funding
This research was funded by the University of Zabol under Grant No. IR-UOZ-GR-6673. The funding body had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Sanaz Tanakian: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Mohammad Reza Asgharipour: Conceptualization, Supervision, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Project administration. Ahmad Ghanbari: Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Mahmoud Ramroudi: Investigation, Data curation, Validation. Zahra Marzban: Investigation, Data curation, Visualization.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Zabol and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zabol (Approval No. UOZ-EC-1400–12). The full name of the approving committee is the ‘Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zabol’. All participants (farmers) provided informed verbal consent prior to interviews, as per local customs and institutional guidelines for non-invasive survey-based research. No personal identifiers were collected to ensure anonymity.
Consent for publication
Not applicable. The manuscript contains no individual person’s data in any form.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Information. (download DOCX )
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tanakian, S., Asgharipour, M.R., Ghanbari, S. et al. Ecological sustainability assessment of agricultural production systems in the Sistan region using emergy footprint analysis.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-49480-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-49480-5
Keywords
- Ecological security
- Ecological sustainability
- Emergy footprint
- Agricultural production systems
- Sistan region
Source: Ecology - nature.com
