Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators

Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators

G Model ARTICLE IN PRESS ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16 Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecologica...

1MB Sizes 2 Downloads 59 Views

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators Fabiana Morandi a,∗ , Daniel E. Campbell b , Federico M. Pulselli a , Simone Bastianoni a a

Ecodynamics Group, Department of Earth, Environmental and Physical Sciences, University of Siena, Pian dei Mantellini, 44, 53100 Siena, Italy US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecologic Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online xxx Keywords: Hierarchical emergy evaluation Set theory EU27 Italy Tuscany

a b s t r a c t What is the role of a system’s size in an emergy evaluation, when we have to evaluate nested systems? To answer this question, we consider a simple nested system with three levels of organization and then examine the relationships among the emergy flows at each level and among the indicators derived from these flows. As an example of nested systems with three levels of organization, we consider a nested territorial system that is European Union–Italy–Tuscany. In particular, this system is analyzed as Italy within the European Union and Tuscany within Italy. The emergy evaluation of each hierarchical pair of system levels is presented using a new method based on set theory and, moreover, each level is analyzed as an independent system. This “double analysis” is necessary because the emergy indicators obtained for each level, are analyzed and compared to show the differences that appear when the system under study is considered as part of the larger system that contains it. In this work, data analysis shows that the set of imported flows changes its cardinality when changing the level in the hierarchically organization. In particular, with respect to EU27 and Italy, it emerges that Tuscany has a very high Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR), while EU27 has the lower value both for the Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR) and for the Emergy Yeld Ratio (EYR). It means that in Tuscany there is a big pressure on ecosystems from non-renewable flows while, in general, the EU27 might be a good place for future economic investments. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This work is a practical application of the model proposed by Morandi et al. (2013, 2014) concerning emergy evaluation by means of set theory. This approach is able to make an emergy evaluation of nested systems without any double counting. In fact, there are no prior mathematical methods to definitely demonstrate that double counting is not an issue in emergy analysis prior to this series of papers. In the present paper, the real meaning of traditional emergy indices is considered in a nested territorial system with three levels of organization; in particular, emergy indices for each level of organization (system, subsystem and the larger system that contains the system of interest) are calculated and compared with each other. To do this, first, it is necessary to perform an emergy

∗ Corresponding author. Current address: Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DTU, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Tel.: +45 2132 6535. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (F. Morandi).

evaluation of the system under study to determine the values of the flows needed to calculate the indices. However, before calculating and comparing indices, the emergy evaluation methodology is presented.

1.1. Emergy evaluation Emergy evaluation is an important tool to estimate the physical/environmental sustainability and economic performance of a system. It is a thermodynamic methodology based on the concepts of solar emergy and transformity introduced by Prof. H.T. Odum (Odum, 1983; Odum et al., 1983; Odum and Odum, 1983) to analyze the degree of organization and complexity of a system. Emergy is defined as the available solar energy used up directly and indirectly to make a service or a product. Its unit is the solar emjoule (semj). Emergy can also be considered as an “energy memory” (Sciencemann, 1997) because it represents the accumulation of all the solar energy used up during the process of making an item. In this sense emergy estimates the total work that the environment

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001 0304-3800/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

2

has carried out to make a service or a product: a large flow of emergy indicates that there has been a large consumption of solar emergy and, consequently, a large potential environmental cost for the item. The other fundamental concept in emergy evaluation is the transformity (or more generally the Unit Emergy Value, UEV) that represents the “quality” (from an emergy viewpoint) of an item and it is defined as the solar emergy required to make one unit (J, g, . . .) of a certain service or product. Its unit is the solar emjoule per unit (semj/J, semj/g, . . .). In particular, the UEVs are the coefficients that allow converting the various types of energy (or material) flows into emergy flows. Based on the different types of emergy flows to the system under study, emergy indices can be calculated: these indices are different ratios that are used in evaluating the environmental sustainability of systems, as well as other aspects of system structure and function. The emergy indices considered in this study are:

- Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR): the ratio between the total emergy and the imported flows (F). - It represents the ability of the system to exploit free resources from the environment.

- Percentage of renewability (%R): The percentage of the total emergy used that feeds a system coming from local renewable sources (R).

1.2. The system

%R =

R Total emergy flow

- Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR): the ratio of the emergy used from non-renewable sources (N) and imported flows (F) to the emergy of renewable sources (R). It represents the matching between the quantity of emergy inputs to an economy that are not renewable and the renewable base of the system, i.e., the purpose of the ELR is to indicate the potential pressure on the local ecosystems from the non-renewable flows. ELR =

N+F R

- Emergy Density (ED) or emergy flow per unit area: the intensity of emergy flow per unit area and it represents the measure of the spatial and temporal concentration of emergy flow within the system. A high value of this ratio caused by nonrenewable emergy flows means that there is a high stress on the environment or a situation where space is becoming a limiting factor for further development of the system (Bastianoni, 2008). ED =

Total emergy flow Area

- Emergy per Person (EpP): the ratio between the total emergy flow and population. Often considered to be an indicator of the average quality of life within the system (Odum, 1996). Total emergy flow EpP = Population - Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR): the ratio of solar emergy purchased from outside the system (F) to the solar emergy supplied by the renewable (R) and non-renewable (N) energy sources from within the system. It shows the proportion of economic investment relative to the indigenous resources of a region and reflects the intensity of development (Brown and McClanahan, 1996; Campbell et al., 2005). EIR =

F R+N

EYR =

Total emergy flow F

- Emergy to Money Ratio (EMR): the ratio between the total emergy use and the gross domestic product (GDP) of the system. It can be used for a twofold reason: as a shortcut to convert a monetary input into emergy input, when the energy/matter input is not available; to transfer the monetary unit of measure, more familiar and easier to understand, to the environmental inputs for which no-market exists. EMR =

Total emergy flow GDP

The nested system under study (Fig. 1) is constituted by Tuscany (a sub-system of Italy), Italy (the system of interest) and the European Union (the larger system). An emergy evaluation of this system is performed by applying the mathematical model based on the language of sets (Bastianoni et al., 2011; Morandi, 2012; Morandi et al., 2013, 2014) and the results of this analysis are given for each level of organization presented both as a single system and as a level in a hierarchically organized system. A general scheme (Fig. 2) is followed to perform these analyses: starting with the European Union, it is possible to analyze Italy and then, in a similar manner, Tuscany. After illustrating the emergy evaluations of the hierarchical levels of the system and calculating the emergy indices for each level, a new definition of these indices is presented considering the multilevel analysis model based on set theory. This model demonstrated that indices cannot be passed through the levels with invariant formulations. 2. Method 2.1. Emergy evaluation by means of set theory Bastianoni et al. (2011) proposed that emergy can be understood as a set: this insight gives rise to a new representation of systems using set theory that is consistent with the emergy literature and the way Odum described the use of the Energy Systems Language and, moreover, it makes more comprehensible and correct both the definition of emergy and its evaluation. In this way, in fact, all processes and flows in the system are represented by a set and the total emergy of the system is given by Em =



Emi

i

where Emi is the set representing the emergy of the i-th input. The four rules of emergy algebra, defined by Brown and Herendeen (1996) are all included in the operation of union. By using the union among sets (instead of the sum of the flows) it is impossible to have a sum greater than the source emergy and any problem of double counting is avoided. Moreover, as demonstrated by Morandi et al. (2013, 2014), this model can be used to evaluate the emergy of hierarchically nested systems: in particular for nested territorial systems, it is easy to risk a double counting, especially when we consider imported flows. For example, considering EU27, if we sum the emergy flows supporting every countries (i.e.,

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

3

Fig. 1. The 3-levels of the system under study: EU27–Italy–Tuscany.

EU27s subsystems) a very relevant double counting is made since also the emergy flows exchanged among EU27 countries would be included. According to the model presented in Morandi et al. (2013), the total emergy flow feeding a territorial system is given by the union of its renewable flows (R), local non-renewable flows (N) and imported flows (F). Imported flows are the union of the imports from the larger system that contains it (F* ) and the imports from the Rest of the World (FRW ).

By using the language of set theory, the emergy indices can be represented as the ratio between the cardinalities (i.e., the number of elements in a set1 ) of the sets that represent that index: %R =

|R| |Total emergy flow

ELR =

|N ∪ F| |N| + |F| = |R| |R|

ED =

|Total emergy flow| Area

EpP =

|Total emergy flow| Population

EIR =

|F| |F| = |R ∪ N| |R| + |N|

EYR =

EMR =

|Total emergy flow| |F| |Total emergy flow| GDP

Because the aim of this work is not to present a complete emergy evaluation of a single system, we do not consider the entire history of each level, but we provide only the necessary inputs to evaluate the emergy required to organize each level. For the same reason,

Fig. 2. General scheme followed to perform the analyses.

1 If the cardinality of the union of the sets is equal to the sum of the cardinalities of the individual sets the sets do not have any elements in common.

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

4

Fig. 3. ESL diagram of a territorial system. It is used to represent each level of the nested system presented in the paper, that are EU27, Italy and Tuscany in 2008.

we chose not to represent all the systems’ details in the energy diagram, but instead we used a simple diagram, shown in Fig. 3, that is valid for every level. Simplification of the diagram was attained by using general boxes that collect functionally similar or related processes. For example, the box named “industry” collects mining, power plants, food processing and production and manufacturing, while the one named “commerce” collects all processes concerning trade, both inside and outside the system. Note that for the source “fuels & minerals”, there is no arrow (flow) connecting fuels and minerals from inside the system with those imported to it. This condition is due to the fact that, to perform these analyses, we chose to consider only the annual extraction of fuels and minerals from within the system and not the storage that may accumulate within the system during these years. 3. Emergy evaluation of the systems In this section we illustrate the emergy evaluation of each level in the nested system under study referring to the year 2008, which is the year for which we found the greatest data availability for all three levels analyzed. All flows are expressed relative to the 9.26E + 24 semj/yr baseline (Campbell, 2000) and all references for UEVs used in the tables are reported in Appendix. 3.1. Emergy evaluation of European Union The European Union is an economic and political aggregation constituted of 27 countries, which cover much of the continent of Europe and, in this case, it is also the larger system for Italy, our system of interest in this analysis. There are no past emergy analyses of the European Union (EU27) as far as we could determine; and in this work, the evaluation was performed based principally on a collection of data at the regional level. Statistical data were collected, when possible, for all 27 countries; otherwise global data for the EU27 were considered. Data were principally obtained from the EUROSTAT Database (EUROSTAT). Information was acquired on the physical dimensions

of the territorial systems and sub-systems of the EU along with the quantity of inputs to the social and economic systems of interest, including housing, agriculture, industry, and other services and activities. The system boundaries correspond to the political boundaries of the member states, making the EU27 a union of its individual nations. Under this assumption and accessing the data from the database (EUROSTAT), we estimated that the EU27 covers an area of 6.05E + 12 m2 with a coastline length of 6.6E + 07 m. The population in 2008 was about 500,000,000 people and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 1.25E + 13D , which corresponds to 1.74E + 13 US current U.S.$.2 The diagram representing the EU27 with all the interactions between the numerous components within the system is shown in Fig. 3 while all inputs are collected in Table 1. Results show that the total emergy (U = R ∪ N ∪ F) is equal to 2.02E + 25 semj/yr. According to the model presented in Morandi et al. (2013), the total flow of renewable emergy (R) is calculated as the union (that in this case is equal to the sum) of the maximum fluxes on land and on the continental shelf that are respectively, the chemical potential of rain and the emergy from waves (Table 1). The renewable emergy inflow to the EU27 in 2008 was 6.33E + 23 semj/yr. The total flow of local non-renewable sources (N) produced in the EU27 in 2008 was 1.94E + 24 semj/yr, which is the sum of items from 8 to 13 in Table 1. Concerning imported and exported flows to and from the European Union in 2008, the total emergy imported was equal to 2.35E + 25 semj/yr, while the total emergy exported was 8.18E + 24 semj/yr. In Table 2 flows regarding local production and consumption within the system are reported. The indigenous renewable productions in 2008 are shown in the amount of 1.13E + 25 semj/yr and it is evident that the largest production is Net timber growth (43%) followed by Livestock and Agriculture (26% and 25% respectively). Agriculture and livestock production were estimated based on the main product for each

2

The average exchange ratio in 2008 was 1.3919D /$.

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

5

Table 1 Emergy table for EU27 in 2008. Item Renewable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sunlight on land Sunlight on shelf Rain chemical on land Rain chemical on shelf Rain geopotential Wind on land Wind on shelf Earth cycle, land Earth cycle, shelf Waves Tides

Local non-renewable sources Non-renewable sources within the system Natural gas production 8 Oil production 9 Coal production 10 Metals 11 Industrial minerals 12 Dispersed rural sources Net loss of topsoil 13

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Emergy flow (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

6.26E + 21 J 2.67E + 21 J 1.83E + 19 J 8.10E + 18 J 1.27E + 19 J 3.18E + 19 J 6.49E + 19 J 8.67E + 18 J 3.46E + 18 J 1.01E + 19 J 4.47E + 19 J

1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.81E + 04 1.81E + 04 1.01E + 04 1.43E + 03 1.43E + 03 6.00E + 03 6.00E + 03 2.99E + 04 2.43E + 03

6.26E + 21 2.67E + 21 3.32E + 23 1.47E + 23 1.28E + 23 4.54E + 22 9.28E + 22 5.20E + 22 2.07E + 22 3.01E + 23 1.09E + 23

A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1

7.82E + 18 J 4.10E + 18 J 1.58E + 19 J 3.15E + 13 g 3.09E + 12 g

4.35E + 04 5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 Variable Variable

3.40E + 23 2.22E + 23 6.18E + 23 3.60E + 23 3.76E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.2

3.47E + 17 J

7.26E + 04

2.52E + 22

A2.2

Import to EU27 14 Oil 15 Coal Natural gas 16 17 Electricity Renewable energy 18 19 Metals 20 Minerals 21 Food & agric. products 22 Livestock, meat, fish Chemicals 23 Transportation equipment 24 25 Plastics & rubber 26 Other non metallic mineral products Other finished products 27

2.54E + 19 J 6.19E + 18 J 1.62E + 19 J 8.48E + 16 J 2.54E + 17 J 1.87E + 14 g 6.97E + 15 g 1.12E + 14 g 7.13E + 12 g 5.46E + 13 g 1.37E + 13 g 1.66E + 13 g 9.09E + 13 g 8.95E + 14 g

5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 1.54E + 05 1.00E + 05 Variable Variable Variable Variable 5.09E + 09 7.76E + 09 4.17E + 09 Variable Variable

1.38E + 24 2.43E + 23 7.03E + 23 1.31E + 22 2.54E + 22 2.51E + 24 1.36E + 25 8.39E + 23 2.18E + 23 2.78E + 23 1.06E + 23 6.92E + 22 9.26E + 22 3.45E + 24

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a A2.4.a A2.2 A2.2 A2.3 a A2.3 b A2.3 c A2.3 d A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3g

Export from the EU27 Oil 28 29 Coal Natural gas 30 31 Electricity Renewable energy 32 Metals 33 Minerals 34 Food & agric. products 35 36 Livestock, meat, fish Chemicals 37 Transportation equipment 38 Plastics & rubber 39 Other non metallic mineral products 40 Other finished products 41

2.27E + 18 J 9.62E + 17 J 3.39E + 18 J 8.01E + 16 J 1.16E + 17 J 2.27E + 13 g 2.47E + 15 g 5.64E + 13 g 5.81E + 12 g 4.88E + 13 g 2.13E + 13 g 2.15E + 13 g 7.87E + 13 g 2.32E + 14 g

5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 1.54E + 05 1.00E + 05 Variable Variable Variable Variable 5.09E + 09 7.76E + 09 4.17E + 09 Variable Variable

1.23E + 23 3.77E + 22 1.47E + 23 1.23E + 22 1.16E + 22 5.23E + 23 5.01E + 24 2.46E + 23 2.86E + 23 2.48E + 23 1.65E + 23 8.95E + 22 8.52E + 22 1.21E + 24

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a A2.4 a A2.2 A2.2 A2.3 a A2.3 b A2.3 c A2.3 d A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3 g

country and the emergy was calculated considering an average transformity for that product. This was done because the available statistical databases for the various countries were not consistent and often there were many missing data points. If, due to this simplification, a mistake has been made, it is not a large one, since in the overall emergy evaluation the relevance of the emergy of renewable productions is relatively small. The classification of the emergy inputs into three categories also shows how much each category supports the system, i.e., renewable sources represent 3.13%, non-renewable sources about 9%, while the imported flows represent more than 85% of inputs. 3.2. Emergy evaluation of Italy There have been a few past emergy analyses of Italy (Ulgiati et al., 1994; Cialani et al., 2005; the NEAD 2000, 2004, 2008) but,

as already mentioned, this study considers the year 2008 analyzed using the methods improvements gained from using the mathematics of sets to carry out the analysis. Because Italy is divided into 20 Regions, it is possible to see Italy as a system composed of 20 subsystems. The generic ESL diagram given in Fig. 3 can also serve as the Energy Systems diagram of Italy. Italy, the islands Sicily and Sardinia included, covers an area equal to 4.12E + 11 m2 with 7.6E + 06 m of coastline. Italy has three different elevation zones: mountains (35.2%), hills (41.6%) and plains (23.2%) (ISTAT, 2010). There are many different zones of soil use: for example, there are areas heavily altered due to the construction of buildings and due to the extraction of materials (e.g., the opening of quarries), areas totally dedicated to agricultural activities and areas very close to their natural structural condition, such as dunes. Sediments in lagoons and intertidal coastal areas are also present. The population of Italy was about 60 million individuals in

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

6 Table 2 Production and use within the EU27. Item Local production Renewable electricity 1 2 Agriculture production 3 Livestock production Fisheries production 4 5 Net timber growth Timber harvest 6 Total Electricity production 7 11 Nuclear electricity production Local use 8 9 10 11 12 13

Natural gas used Oil used Coal used Electricity Metal used Mineral used

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Emergy flow (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

2.17E + 18 J 1.35E + 15 g 2.06E + 14 g 6.82E + 12 g 2.31E + 20 J 2.93E + 18 J

Variable Variable Variable 1.60E + 10 2.10E + 04 7.00E + 04

A2.4 a A2.4 b A2.4 c A2.4 d A2.4 e A2.4 f

1.21E + 19 J 3.37E + 18 J

1.66E + 05 1.66E + 05

3.62E + 23 2.81E + 24 2.98E + 24 1.09E + 23 4.86E + 24 2.05E + 23 1.13E + 25 2.02E + 24 5.62E + 23

2.05E + 09 J 2.72E + 19 J 2.06E + 19 J 1.22E + 19 J

4.35E + 04 5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 1.66E + 05

8.92E + 23 1.47E + 24 8.06E + 23 2.03E + 24 2.35E + 24 8.97E + 24

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a1

2008 and the highest population density was located in the coastal plain. The Italian Gross Domestic Product in 2008 was 1.57E + 12D (2.12E + 12US$). As shown by items listed in Table 3, the total emergy flow, U, in Italy in 2008 is 2.24E + 24 semj/yr. By dividing the emergy used by the GDP of Italy in 2008, the Emergy to Money Ratio (EMR) is calculated and it was found to be 1.42E + 12 semj/D , which corresponds to 1.02E + 12 semj/$. This EMR represents the emergybuying power of the Italian currency. The emergy of renewable sources (R) received by Italy is around 2% (4.29E + 22 semj/yr) of the total emergy used, and it is calculated as the sum of the maximum of the renewable inflows on land and on the Mediterranean shelf area. For Italy, it is calculated as the union between the emergy in rain (chemical potential) and waves. The total emergy imported into Italy3 (Table 3, Item 14–27), that is the emergy of the imported items from the Rest of the World and from EU, is equal to 1.87E + 24 semj/yr while the total emergy exported (Table 3, Item 28–41) is equal to 8.43E + 23 semj/yr. Concerning the production (Table 3, Item 8–13) and use (Table 4, Item 8–11) of local non-renewable resources, even though there is a large production of industrial minerals and electricity, domestic consumption is larger than local production. The total emergy in extracted fuels (natural gas, oil, and coal) is 3.15E + 22 semj/yr while domestic consumption is 3.67E + 23 semj/yr. In fact, the data shows that there is a large import of energetic materials. The total production of indigenous renewable energy in Italy in 2008 (Table 4, Item 1–6, i.e., Renewable Electricity, Agriculture Production, Livestock Production, Fisheries Production, Net Timber Growth, Timber Harvest) is 7.99E + 23 semj/yr, and, in emergy terms, the Net Timber Growth is very high: in fact this item represents 70% of the total renewable production of Italy followed by the livestock production at 12%.

3.3. Emergy evaluation of Italy as a subsystem of the EU27 Italy is part of EU27 and we have analyzed it as a subsystem of the larger territorial system that contains it. To perform this analysis only the relationships between Italy and the EU26 (EU27 minus Italy) have been considered, because of problems in data availability. In this way the system, i.e. EU27, is constituted of only

3 To be more precise the union of all imported flows should be considered, but it is correct also to consider the sum because they are disjoint sets (Morandi et al., 2014).

A2.4 a1 A2.4 a1

2 sub-systems: Italy and the EU26, and to evaluate the emergy of Italy, the interactions between them have been studied. The study of the interactions between the subsystems (in this case the EU members) is important because they do not have to be accounted for when the EU system is considered as the union of its subsystems. In fact, flows that would be imported flows for the subsystems, are internal flows for the EU27 system as a whole, thus they do not add any new contribution of emergy in the evaluation. When Italy is considered as a subsystem of the larger system that contains it, in this case the EU27, geographical characteristics, internal production and domestic supply (i.e., renewable flows and non-renewable flows) do not change. The only flow that is different is the imported flow. For this reason, in Table 5, renewable and internal resources have not been reported, but the imported and exported flows have been updated considering only Italy’s imports and exports from and to the Rest of the World (FRW ). In fact, when a subsystem is considered as a part of its whole system, imports from outside are a fraction of the total outside imports to the larger system. In the present analysis, this flow was calculated as the difference between the total imports to Italy and imports from the EU (i.e., EU26), since data on the trade exchange between Italy and each of the other EU members were available. In this way, even if the values are very close to those obtained from the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) and European Statistics (EUROSTAT) databases, the estimates of the flows arriving in Italy from the outside are more accurate, since the data used are reported in grams and organized with the same trade code (ATECO 2007), while the data recorded in EUROSTAT are often given only in monetary values. Therefore when Italy is considered as part of the European Union, different values of the summary variables are obtained due the changes in the calculation of imported flows and, as it will be possible to see at the end (Table 10), the indices also change. Data in Table 6 were obtained by considering all imported and exported flows between Italy and the other 26 countries of the EU. In 2008 the total emergy imported from the EU26 to Italy was 6.74E + 23 semj/yr while Italy exported 5.02E + 23 semj/yr to them. 3.4. Emergy evaluation of Tuscany Concerning the emergy analysis of Tuscany, there has been one past study (Ulgiati et al., 1995). However, it only considered Tuscany as a subsystem of Italy, because data on the relationships of Tuscany with other Italian regions were not available. To be consistent with the previous analyses (i.e., of the European Union and Italy), the year 2008 was also selected as the analysis year for

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

7

Table 3 Emergy table for Italy in 2008. Item

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Solar emergy (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

1.19E + 21 J 5.10E + 20 J 1.13E + 18 J 1.90E + 17 J 7.59E + 17 J 1.01E + 18 J 7.08E + 17 J 8.37E + 17 J 3.09E + 17 J 7.50E + 17 J 1.10E + 17 J

1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.81E + 04 1.81E + 04 1.01E + 04 1.43E + 03 1.43E + 03 6.00E + 03 6.00E + 03 2.99E + 04 2.43E + 04

1.19E + 21 5.10E + 20 2.05E + 22 3.44E + 21 7.67E + 21 1.45E + 21 1.02E + 21 5.02E + 21 1.85E + 21 2.24E + 22 2.67E + 21

A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1

3.53E + 17 J 2.19E + 17 J 1.10E + 17 J 3.00E + 09 g 2.76E + 14 g

4.35E + 04 5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 2.81E + 11 Variable

1.53E + 22 1.18E + 22 4.33E + 21 8.43E + 20 3.37E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.2

2.24E + 16 J

7.26E + 04

1.62E + 21

A2.2

Oil Coal Natural gas Electricity Renewable (elec.) Metals Minerals Food & agriculture products Livestock, meat, fish Chemicals Transportation Equipment Plastics & rubber Other non metallic mineral products Other finished products

3.45E + 18 J 6.02E + 17 J 2.93E + 18 J 1.21E + 16 J 3.56E + 16 J 1.95E + 13 J 9.65E + 12 g 3.45E + 13 g 3.70E + 12 g 2.17E + 13 g 5.79E + 12 g 1.90E + 12 g 2.72E + 12 g 8.52E + 13 g

5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 1.54E + 05 Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable 5.09E + 09 7.76E + 09 4.17E + 09 Variable Variable

1.87E + 23 2.36E + 22 1.27E + 23 1.86E + 21 5.30E + 21 1.81E + 23 1.28E + 23 3.14E + 23 1.68E + 23 1.10E + 23 4.49E + 22 7.92E + 21 2.15E + 21 5.74E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a A2.4 a A2.2 A2.2 A2.3 a A2.3 b A2.3 c A2.3 d A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3g

Export from Italy Oil 28 29 Coal Natural gas 30 31 Electricity Renewable 32 Metals 33 Minerals 34 Food & agriculture products 35 36 Livestock, meat, fish Chemicals 37 Transportation equipment 38 Plastics & rubber 39 Other non metallic mineral products 40 Other finished products 41

4.09E + 16 J 3.96E + 15 J 8.00E + 15 J 9.44E + 14 J 4.22E + 15 J 7.81E + 11 g 2.92E + 12 g 2.96E + 13 g 1.11E + 12 g 1.26E + 13 g 5.12E + 12 g 3.59E + 12 g 3.59E + 12 g 7.78E + 13 g

5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 1.54E + 05 Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable 5.09E + 09 7.76E + 09 4.17E + 09 Variable Variable

2.22E + 21 1.55E + 20 3.48E + 20 1.45E + 20 6.29E + 20 1.89E + 22 2.84E + 22 1.01E + 23 6.29E + 22 6.41E + 22 3.97E + 22 1.50E + 22 3.25E + 21 5.07E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a A2.4 a A2.2 A2.2 A2.3 a A2.3 b A2.3 c A2.3 d A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3g

Renewable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sunlight, on land Sunlight, on shelf Rain, chemical on land Rain, chemical on shelf Rain, geopotential Wind, kinetic energy on land Wind, kinetic energy on shelf Earth Heat on land Earth Heat on shelf Waves Tides

Local non renewable Non-renewable sources within the system Natural gas production 8 Oil production 9 Coal production 10 Metals 11 Industrial minerals 12 Dispersed rural source Net loss of topsoil 13 Import 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Table 4 Production and Use within Italy. Item Local production Renewable electricity 1 Agriculture production 2 Livestock production 3 Fisheries production 4 Net timber growth 5 Timber harvest 6 Electricity production 7 Local use Coal used 8 Natural gas used 9 Oil used 10 Electricity used 11

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Emergy flow (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

2.39E + 17 J 2.39E + 13 g 1.81E + 13 J 2.31E + 11 g 2.70E + 19 J 8.99E + 16 J 1.15E + 18 J

Variable Variable Variable 1.60E + 10 2.10E + 04 7.00E + 04 1.49E + 05

8.91E + 22 3.85E + 22 9.52E + 22 3.68E + 21 3.73E + 23 4.14E + 21 1.71E + 23

A2.4 a A2.4 b A2.4 c A2.4 d A2.4 e A2.4 f A2.4 a2

7.32E + 17 J 3.23E + 18 J 3.64E + 18 J 1.29E + 18 J

3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 5.42E + 04 1.54E + 05

2.87E + 22 1.41E + 23 1.97E + 23 1.99E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

8

Table 5 Imports and Exports between Italy and countries outside the EU in 2008. Item Imports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Exports 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Emergy flow (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

Oil Coal Natural gas Electricity Metals Minerals Food & agriculture products Livestock, meat, fish Chemicals Transportation equipment Plastics & rubber Other non metallic mineral products Other finished products

3.45E + 18 J 5.64E + 17 J 2.62E + 18 J 7.21E + 15 J 1.94E + 13 g 5.58E + 12 g 2.35E + 13 g 7.33E + 11 g 6.36E + 12 g 2.01E + 12 g 6.79E + 11 g 2.71E + 12 g 4.47E + 13 g

5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 1.54E + 05 variable variable variable variable 8.95E + 09 1.47E + 10 2.71E + 09 variable variable

1.87E + 23 2.21E + 22 1.14E + 23 1.11E + 21 2.09E + 23 1.14E + 23 2.12E + 23 2.14E + 22 5.70E + 22 2.96E + 22 1.84E + 21 7.36E + 21 2.95E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a A2.2 A2.2 A2.3 a A2.3 b A2.3 c A2.3 d A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3g

Oil Coal Natural gas Electricity Metals Minerals Food & agriculture products Livestock, meat, fish Chemicals Transportation equipment Plastics & rubber Other non metallic mineral products Other finished products

2.58E + 16 J 0.00E + 00 J 7.09E + 15 J 5.97E + 13 J 6.92E + 11 g 6.56E + 11 g 2.54E + 13 g 3.08E + 11 g 4.53E + 12 g 1.74E + 12 g 8.68E + 11 g 1.12E + 12 g 3.34E + 13 g

5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 1.54E + 05 variable variable variable variable 8.95E + 09 1.47E + 10 2.71E + 09 variable variable

1.40E + 21 0.00E + 00 3.09E + 20 9.20E + 18 5.71E + 21 4.21E + 21 5.09E + 22 1.86E + 22 4.06E + 22 2.56E + 22 2.35E + 21 1.14E + 21 2.05E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a A2.2 A2.2 A2.3 a A2.3 b A2.3 c A2.3 d A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3g

Tuscany. The Italian Statistics Institute (ISTAT) collects data on trade for each region but only regarding exchange with others countries. However, thanks to the Tuscan regional statistics office (IRPET), that elaborates global data to develop a report on exchange between Tuscany and the rest of Italy, it was possible to perform the analysis in a similar manner to that already performed for the EU and Italy. Tuscany is an Italian region that covers an area of 3.36E + 10 m2 and it has 6.54E + 05 m of coastline. The territory is mostly hilly

(66%); plain and mountain land cover represent, respectively 20% and 14% of the total area. The total inhabitants of Tuscany in 2008 were 3,707,818 people and the Gross Domestic Product was equal to 1.04E + 11D (1.45E + 11US$). An ESL diagram of Tuscany in 2008 can also be represented by Fig. 3; however, there would be no tanks representing oil and coal, because these resources are not present within the territory of Tuscany.

Table 6 Imports and Exports between Italy and the EU26 in 2008. Item

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Emergy flow (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

Imports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Oil Coal Natural gas Electricity Metals Minerals Food & agriculture products Livestock, meat, fish Chemicals Transportation equipment Plastics & rubber Other non metallic mineral products Other finished products

1.72E + 04 J 3.83E + 16 J 3.08E + 17 J 4.85E + 15 J 8.90E + 10 g 4.07E + 12 g 1.10E + 13 g 2.97E + 12 g 1.53E + 13 g 3.78E + 12 g 1.22E + 12 g 3.52E + 09 g 4.04E + 13 g

5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 1.49E + 05 variable variable variable variable 5.09E + 09 7.76E + 09 4.17E + 09 variable variable

9.30E + 08 1.50E + 21 1.34E + 22 7.23E + 20 8.27E + 20 1.40E + 22 1.02E + 23 1.46E + 23 7.81E + 22 2.93E + 22 5.09E + 21 4.37E + 21 2.79E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.3 a A2.3 b A2.3 c A2.3 d A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3g

Exports 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Oil Coal Natural gas Electricity Metals Minerals Food & agriculture products Livestock, meat, fish Chemicals Transportation Equipment Plastics & rubber Other non metallic mineral products Other finished products

1.51E + 16 J 3.96E + 15 J 9.09E + 14 J 8.84E + 14 J 8.96E + 10 g 2.26E + 12 g 4.14E + 12 g 7.97E + 11 g 8.07E + 12 g 3.38E + 12 g 2.72E + 12 g 2.47E + 12 g 4.44E + 13 g

5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 1.49E + 05 variable variable variable variable 5.09E + 09 7.76E + 09 4.17E + 09 variable variable

8.19E + 20 1.55E + 20 3.95E + 19 1.32E + 20 8.33E + 20 2.41E + 22 4.98E + 22 4.43E + 22 4.11E + 22 2.62E + 22 1.14E + 22 2.11E + 21 3.02E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.3 a A2.3 b A2.3 c A2.3 d A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3g

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

9

Table 7 Emergy table for Tuscany in 2008. Item Renewable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sunlight on land Sunlight on shelf Rain, chemical on land Rain chemical on shelf Rain, geopotential Wind, kinetic energy on land Wind, kinetic energy on shelf Earth heat on land Earth heat on shelf Waves Tides

Non renewable Non-renewable sources within the system 8 Natural Gas production Oil production 9 Coal production 10 11 Metals Industrial minerals 12 Dispersed rural sources Net loss of topsoil 13

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Emergy flow (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

9.20E + 19 J 4.69E + 19 J 8.67E + 16 J 1.82E + 16 J 4.80E + 16 J 2.86E + 17 J 7.92E + 16 J 1.38E + 17 J 2.96E + 16 J 5.97E + 16 J 3.50E + 15 J

1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.81E + 04 1.81E + 04 1.81E + 04 1.43E + 03 1.43E + 03 3.39E + 04 3.39E + 04 2.98E + 04 4.32E + 04

9.20E + 19 4.69E + 19 1.57E + 21 3.29E + 20 8.71E + 20 4.10E + 20 1.14E + 20 4.69E + 21 1.00E + 21 1.78E + 21 1.51E + 20

A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1 A2.1

5.33E + 13 J 0.00E + 00 J 0.00E + 00 J 0.00E + 00 g 9.64E + 06 mc

4.35E + 04 5.42E + 04 3.92E + 04 variable variable

2.32E + 18 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.07E + 23

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.2

4.38E + 11 J

7.26E + 04

3.18E + 16

A2.2

Import 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Agricultural products Fishing and fishing prod. Energetic minerals Non energetic minerals Foods beverages and tobacco products Textiles and wearing apparel Leather and related products Wood and products of wood Paper products Coke and petroleum refining products Chemicals and pharmaceuticals Rubber and plastic Other non metallic mineral products Basic metals and metal products Machinery Electrical equipment Transport equipment Other finished products Manufactured gas

5.92E + 13 g 4.13E + 10 g 6.10E + 12 J 6.89E + 12 J 6.07E + 12 g 5.45E + 11 g 3.42E + 11 g 2.45E + 12 g 4.45E + 12 g 7.60E + 12 g 2.76E + 12 g 4.70E + 11 g 4.70E + 12 g 7.01E + 12 g 6.65E + 11 g 1.99E + 11 g 6.65E + 11 g 4.18E + 11 g 6.42E + 02 g

4.78E + 09 1.60E + 10 4.56E + 04 1.85E + 10 7.84E + 09 7.55E + 10 9.01E + 10 3.97E + 08 2.05E + 09 2.64E + 09 5.09E + 09 4.17E + 09 1.50E + 09 1.50E + 09 4.02E + 09 1.47E + 10 7.76E + 09 2.25E + 09 9.63E + 10

2.83E + 23 6.60E + 20 2.78E + 17 1.28E + 23 4.76E + 22 4.12E + 22 3.08E + 22 9.71E + 20 9.11E + 21 2.01E + 22 1.40E + 22 1.96E + 21 7.05E + 21 1.05E + 22 2.67E + 21 2.93E + 21 5.16E + 21 9.41E + 20 6.19E + 13

A2.4 h A2.4 d A2.4 h A2.4 h A2.4 h A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 c A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3 f A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 d A2.3 g A2.3 g

Export 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Agricultural products Fishing and fishing prod. Energetic minerals Non energetic minerals Foods beverages and tobacco products Textiles and wearing apparel Leather and related products Wood and products of wood Paper products Coke and petroleum refining products Chemicals and pharmaceuticals Rubber and plastic Other non metallic mineral products Basic metals and metal products Machinery Electrical equipment Transport equipment Other finished products Manufactured gas

2.39E + 12 g 2.59E + 10 g 0.00E + 00 J 4.31E + 12 J 5.80E + 12 g 4.65E + 08 g 3.52E + 11 g 7.79E + 11 g 3.48E + 12 g 4.01E + 12 g 1.85E + 12 g 4.25E + 11 g 4.08E + 12 g 4.26E + 12 g 6.07E + 11 g 2.45E + 11 g 7.12E + 11 g 4.62E + 11 g 5.95E + 04 g

4.78E + 09 1.60E + 10 4.56E + 04 1.85E + 10 7.84E + 09 7.55E + 10 9.01E + 10 3.97E + 08 2.05E + 09 2.64E + 09 5.09E + 09 4.17E + 09 1.50E + 09 1.50E + 09 4.02E + 09 1.47E + 10 7.76E + 09 2.25E + 09 9.63E + 10

1.14E + 22 4.14E + 20 0.00E + 00 7.97E + 22 4.55E + 22 3.51E + 19 3.18E + 22 3.09E + 20 7.13E + 21 1.06E + 22 9.44E + 21 1.77E + 21 6.12E + 21 6.39E + 21 2.44E + 21 3.60E + 21 5.53E + 21 1.04E + 21 5.73E + 15

A2.4 h A2.4 d A2.4 h A2.4 h A2.4 h A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 c A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3 f A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 d A2.3 g A2.3 g

The total emergy flow in Tuscany in 2008 was equal to 6.87E + 23 semj/yr of which 1% is represented by renewable resources, as shown in Table 7. In Table 8 items concerning indigenous renewable energy sources (Item 1–6) show that the total amount of this category is 9.84E + 21 semj/yr and it is evident that the largest item is Livestock Production, which is 42% of the total. The only fuel produced in Tuscany is natural gas and its production is not sufficient to satisfy domestic consumption of the

region (Table 8). It is also clear from the data in Table 7 that in Tuscany in 2008 a large quantity of industrial minerals were produced. Note that in Tuscany there is also a large production of electricity originated from geothermal heat. In fact, there are two major geothermal areas in Tuscany, Larderello and Mount Amiata, both located in the western and southern part of the region respectively. Also, there is a large difference between domestic consumption and internal production of goods and services and therefore

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

10 Table 8 Production and use within Tuscany. Item

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Emergy flow (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

Local production Renewable electricity 1 2 Agriculture production 3 Livestock production Fisheries production 4 5 Net timber growth Timber harvest 6 Electricity production 7

2.33E + 16 J 2.04E + 12 g 2.68E + 11 J 6.19E + 09 g 3.75E + 16 J 6.42E + 09 J 8.25E + 16 J

variable variable variable 1.60E + 10 2.10E + 04 7.00E + 04 1.48E + 05

2.92E + 21 1.93E + 21 4.10E + 21 9.89E + 19 7.88E + 20 4.49E + 14 1.26E + 22

A2.4 a A2.4 b A2.4 c A2.4 d A2.4 e A2.4 f A2.4 a3

Local use 8 9 10 11

1.36E + 16 J 2.06E + 17 J 1.47E + 17 J 7.52E + 16 J

3.92E + 04 4.35E + 04 5.42E + 04 1.54E + 05

5.32E + 20 8.97E + 21 7.97E + 21 1.16E + 22

A2.2 A2.2 A2.2 A2.4 a

Coal used Natural gas used Oil used Electricity used

the flow of imports into Tuscany is large. Total imports to Tuscany (Table 7, Item 15–33) are 6.06E + 23 semj/yr. With regard to calculating the imports to and exports from Tuscany in 2008, we had to rely on the latest available data from IRPET referenced to 2007 and organized following the ATECO 2002 trade code. To be consistent with the year used in the other analyses, IRPET data was converted from 2007 to 2008 standards by considering the percentage of total trade that is available from ISTAT and then converting it from millions of Euros to grams using average prices given in the ISTAT database. An average of UEVs used for Italian trade categories was used for Tuscan trade. In this way the best possible approximation of the emergy for each flow in the region was obtained. Total imports and total exports have been determined as the sum of flows from Italy and from outside Italy following data estimated by IRPET. 3.5. Emergy evaluation of Tuscany in 2008 as a subsystem of Italy As Italy can be seen as a subsystem of the European Union, so Tuscany can be seen as a subsystem of Italy and in the same manner an emergy evaluation of Tuscany inside Italy has been performed. Because geographical features do not change, renewable flow and local non-renewable energy flow are the same as that calculated in the previous section. The only flow that changes is the imported flow. The results shown in this section are derived from the integration of the global data (from the Italian Statistics Institute, ISTAT) and local data elaborated by a regional Institute, IRPET. Total imports to Tuscany from outside Italy, listed in Table 9 (Item 1 to 22), are equal to 1.52E + 23 semj/yr, which comprise 25% of the total emergy imports to Tuscany, while exports to the countries outside Italy are 6.58E + 22 semj/yr (29.5% of the total exports). The main products that Tuscany receives from outside Italy are non-energetic minerals and agricultural products, while the main exports from Tuscany to countries outside of Italy are foods, beverages and tobacco products. 4. Emergy indices As noted above, when an emergy evaluation is performed, emergy indices are also calculated to estimate the degree of sustainability and other aspects of the system under study. As shown in the previous section, as a way to illustrate the application of our method we have calculated the traditional indices for each case and we obtained the results shown in Table 10. As mentioned above it was not possible to calculate exactly all the summary variables for Tuscany, so they were calculated by using the aggregated data that are reported for the items in Table 7. In particular, Cuse , Nused and all other indices calculated using the total emergy used have to be considered as “best approximations”.

The data in Table 10 show that for Italy, the internal use of minerals, unrefined metals and other geologic materials (Cuse ) accounts for about 40% (Cuse /U) of Italy’s annual emergy use, while the use of nonrenewable resources coming from within the system (Nused ) represents about 2% of total emergy use. The most “important” flow of emergy received by Italy in 2008 is represented by F, the purchased imports, which comprise about 83% of the total. High values of ELR mean that the pressure of economic activities on local environmental resources can be excessive and also NE can represent an alarm to advise managers that a relevant amount of non-renewable resources are being taken away from the system only in exchange for money, and without being used to any substantial degree locally. High values of the ELR, being based, in part, on the intensity of nonrenewable resource use, are likely to produce problems of local pollution causing an increase in unsustainability (Bastianoni et al., 2009), in general, and in the long run. From this table it is possible to see that the “best” situation with regard to environmental loading is when the system is considered as a subsystem of the next larger system that contains it, i.e., Italy within the EU and Tuscany within Italy. A lower value of the Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR) indicates that the system is more attractive for future development, in the sense that the system has a high potential to be a good user of investments from the economy. Values of the EIR show that Tuscany is a good place for future economic investments compared to an average location in Italy or an average location in the EU27. With respect to the EU and Italy, Tuscany has a very high Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR = 105.3), which means that in Tuscany the impact of economic activities on the environment is potentially very large. This value is understandable because there is a large extraction of industrial minerals occurring within Tuscany.

5. Discussion The three nested levels of hierarchical organization can be compared considering relationships among the flows and index values from Table 10. The importance of the Imported Flow, F, in an emergy evaluation of a system becomes apparent. In fact, when the larger system that contains Italy is “reduced”, as in this case from the World to the EU27, the total emergy flow is reduced by about half although imported flows from the EU to Italy represent 57.2% of the total import, as indicated by national statistics. The EU27 and Italy, as one of its more developed subsystems, both have high values of the ELR, which implies that a considerable stress is being placed on the environment through economic activities. The EIR shows that an average location in the EU27 may be more attractive for future development than Italy, although Tuscany as a province in Italy is twice as attractive for future

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

11

Table 9 Imports and exports between Tuscany and countries outside Italy in 2008. Item Import 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Export 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Raw units per year

UEV (semj/unit)

Emergy flow (semj/yr)

Ref. for UEV in Appendix

Agricultural products Fishing and fishing prod. Energetic minerals Non energetic minerals Foods beverages and tobacco products Textiles and wearing apparel Leather and related products Wood and products of wood Paper products Coke and petroleum refining products Chemicals and pharmaceuticals Rubber and plastic Other non metallic mineral products Basic metals and metal products Machinery Electrical equipment Transport equipment Other finished products Manufactured gas

8.72E + 12 g 1.24E + 10 g 6.06E + 12 J 2.63E + 12 J 1.17E + 12 g 1.81E + 11 g 1.48E + 11 g 4.51E + 11 g 8.64E + 11 g 1.48E + 12 g 1.56E + 12 g 1.32E + 11 g 6.05E + 11 g 2.89E + 12 g 2.28E + 11 g 8.74E + 10 g 4.34E + 11 g 8.98E + 10 g 5.81E + 02 g

4.78E + 09 1.60E + 10 4.56E + 04 1.85E + 10 7.84E + 09 7.55E + 10 9.01E + 10 3.97E + 08 2.05E + 09 2.64E + 09 5.09E + 09 4.17E + 09 1.50E + 09 1.50E + 09 4.02E + 09 1.47E + 10 7.76E + 09 2.25E + 09 9.63E + 10

4.17E + 22 1.99E + 20 2.76E + 17 4.87E + 22 9.17E + 21 1.37E + 22 1.33E + 22 1.79E + 20 1.77E + 21 3.91E + 21 7.93E + 21 5.49E + 20 9.08E + 20 4.34E + 21 9.15E + 20 1.28E + 21 3.36E + 21 2.02E + 20 5.59E + 13

A2.4 h A2.4 d A2.4 h A2.4 h A2.4 h A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 c A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3 f A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 d A2.3 g A2.3 g

Agricultural products Fishing and fishing prod. Energetic minerals Non energetic minerals Foods beverages and tobacco products Textiles and wearing apparel Leather and related products Wood and products of wood Paper products Coke and petroleum refining products Chemicals and pharmaceuticals Rubber and plastic Other non metallic mineral products Basic metals and metal products Machinery Electrical equipment Transport equipment Other finished products Manufactured gas

3.43E + 11 g 1.75E + 09 g 0.00E + 00 g 1.16E + 12 g 1.19E + 12 g 1.95E + 08 g 1.61E + 11 g 9.47E + 10 g 7.43E + 11 g 7.23E + 11 g 6.93E + 11 g 1.21E + 11 g 1.14E + 12 g 1.56E + 12 g 4.01E + 11 g 8.90E + 10 g 4.93E + 11 g 2.61E + 11 g 3.16E + 03 g

4.78E + 09 1.60E + 10 4.56E + 04 1.85E + 10 7.84E + 09 7.55E + 10 9.01E + 10 3.97E + 08 2.05E + 09 2.64E + 09 5.09E + 09 4.17E + 09 1.50E + 09 1.50E + 09 4.02E + 09 1.47E + 10 7.76E + 09 2.25E + 09 9.63E + 10

1.64E + 21 2.80E + 19 0.00E + 00 2.14E + 22 9.35E + 21 1.47E + 19 1.45E + 22 3.76E + 19 1.52E + 21 1.91E + 21 3.53E + 21 5.06E + 20 1.70E + 21 2.34E + 21 1.61E + 21 1.31E + 21 3.83E + 21 5.87E + 20 3.04E + 14

A2.4 h A2.4 d A2.4 h A2.4 h A2.4 h A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 c A2.3 e A2.3 f A2.3 f A2.3 g A2.3 g A2.3 d A2.3 g A2.3 g

Table 10 Summary table showing the system of interest within its larger system. Note

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 a b c d e f

Symbol

R N Nused N0 NE Cuse F G U ELR ED EpP EIR EYR F/U EMR

Item

Renewable sources Non-renewable sources Local non-renewable used Dispersed rural sources Extracted materials Concentrated use Imported flows (total) Imported goodsf Total emergy used Environmental loading ratio Emergy flow density Emergy flow per person Emergy investment ratio Emergy yield ratio (total) Fraction of emergy use purchased Emergy to money ratio

Unit

semj/yr semj/yr semj/yr semj/yr semj/yr semj/yr semj/yr semj/yr semj/yr dimensionless semj/(m2 ·yr) semj/(ind·yr) dimensionless dimensionless dimensionless semj/$

Values EU27a

Italyb

Italy in EUc

Tuscanyd

Tuscany in Italye

6.33E + 23 1.94E + 24 1.57E + 24 2.52E + 22 1.92E + 24 1.45E + 25 2.35E + 25 5.09E + 24 2.02E + 25 30.96 3.35E + 12 4.05E + 16 10.56 0.86 1.16 1.16E + 12

4.29E + 22 3.71E + 23 4.61E + 22 1.62E + 21 3.69E + 23 9.60E + 23 1.88E + 24 1.24E + 24 2.24E + 24 51.17 5.44E + 12 3.73E + 16 20.70 1.19 0.84 1.02E + 12

4.29E + 22 3.71E + 23 4.61E + 22 1.62E + 21 3.69E + 23 9.35E + 23 1.27E + 24 6.26E + 23 1.67E + 24 37.89 4.06E + 12 2.78E + 16 13.98 1.31 0.76 7.65E + 11

6.47E + 21 1.07E + 23 2.73E + 22 3.18E + 16 1.07E + 23 1.55E + 23 6.06E + 23 5.26E + 23 6.87E + 23 105.3 2.04E + 13 1.85E + 17 17.95 1.13 0.88 4.97E + 12

6.47E + 21 1.07E + 23 2.73E + 22 3.18E + 16 1.07E + 23 1.34E + 23 1.52E + 23 1.52E + 23 2.92E + 23 44.20 8.69E + 12 7.87E + 16 4.5 1.92 0.52 2.01E + 12

EU27 within the world system of trade. Italy within the World System of trade including the EU26. Italy with the Countries outside EU27 as the larger system for trade. Tuscany within the World System of trade including the EU26 and the rest of Italy. Tuscany with Nations different from Italy as its larger system for trade. Without considering imported fuels and minerals.

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

developments an average location in the EU27. From this standpoint, Italy is already intensely developed (as shown by the ELR) and further development may not occur unless more of the unused R and N can be brought into play within the nation. Italy has an advantage in trade over an average place in the EU27, because the emergy required for a unit of money flow (the EMR) is smaller than the European average and this means that Italy has a favorable exchange in trade with the EU 26 and probably with much of the Rest of the World. Based on the present matching of renewable and nonrenewable resources with purchased investments within these systems the EU, as a whole, is somewhat attractive for future investments and development, because its EIR (10.56) is less than those of Italy and Tuscany, that are, respectively, 20.70 and 17.95. With regard to their respective environmental impacts, it is interesting to see that even though there is a lot of quarrying in Tuscany, when it is considered as a subsystem, its stress on the environment is larger than both of Italy as subsystem and EU. This environmental degradation is localized within the province so that Tuscany could also be an attractive destination for tourism within Italy and the EU, because its EMR is 4.87 and 4.28 times larger than that of an average location in Italy and the EU, respectively. The importance of the emergy indices in traditional emergy analysis is clear from this discussion, because from them it is possible to draw a good picture of the system, in terms of its sustainability and the efficient use of internal resources as well as the potential effects of external investments. The Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) for each system was also calculated (Table 10), but we note that, for territorial systems, the meaning of the EYR is different from the original definition that was calculated with reference to a process making a product (Odum, 1996). Campbell and Garmestani (2012) described how the EYR is different for a territorial system than for a process and as a result they redefined the mathematical expression (U/F) that was formerly described as the EYR of a territorial system as a new index that considered the emergy used in the system as a measure of that systems vitality instead of a measure of the yield Y, of the territorial system to the next larger system, which was associated with the exports to the larger system. According to Campbell and Garmestani, we agree that U represents the overall vitality of the system and not its yield: in this way the EYR loses its usual “meaning”. While the suite of indices (Local Effect of Investment (LEI), Regional Emergy Yield Ratio (REYR), and the Emergy Index of Sustainable Use (EISU) proposed by Campbell and Garmestani (2012) may represent a more logical way of interpreting the interactions between two system levels and the effect of these interaction on the well-being of the local system. We chose to use a different index to further explore and illustrate the effects of purchased feedback between multiple hierarchical levels in a nested territorial system. For this we consider an emergy index that will be easy to evaluate using the “emergy evaluation model” based on the language of sets. In particular we chose to use an old well-established emergy index, the fraction of use that is purchased from outside the system, F/U, (Odum, 1996), which happens to be the inverse of the old EYR of a territorial system, which Campbell and Garmestani reinterpreted and renamed as LEI. This index places the emphasis directly on the importance of imported flows to any system. In particular, in this way, it is possible to see to what degree the imported flows from the larger system are relevant for determining the total emergy flow. A caveat is that the imported flows must actually be used by the system to be considered within F. Note that, as defined in Morandi et al. (2013), U = R ∪ N ∪ F where R represents the set of renewable sources, N represents from the set of the local non-renewable sources, while F represents the set of flows imported to the system and it is constituted by the imports

from the larger system (F* ) and the imports from the rest of the world (FRW ) after adjusting for any emergy that is passed through the system. Considering the system Xi ⊆ X, we can consider: F(Xi ) U(Xi ) in particular, we consider the cardinality of the sets: |F(Xi )| |F ∗ (Xi ) ∪ F RW (Xi )| |F ∗ (Xi )| + |F RW (Xi )| |F ∗ (Xi )| = = = |U(Xi )| |U(Xi )| |U(Xi )| |U(Xi )| +

|F RW (Xi )| |U(Xi )|

Concerning the other indices, we can rewrite them using the language of sets. It is possible to consider the percentage of renewability both in received and in absorbed flows (Morandi et al., 2013), but in this study we will only show the indices in terms of the renewability of the absorbed flows: %R =

|R(Xi )| |U(Xi )|

With regard to the Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR), we have that |N(Xi ) ∪ F(Xi )| |N(Xi ) ∪ F ∗ (Xi ) ∪ F RW (Xi )| = |R(Xi )| |R(Xi )|

ELR(Xi ) =

In this calculation we consider the total emergy flow from non-renewable sources (N): to evaluate the pressure on local ecosystems from the non-renewable flows (N). It is important to take into account all the resources “extracted” from the local system; because, in this way, all the environmental damage of extraction is considered. In calculating the Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR), it is possible to estimate the proportion of economic investment relative to the indigenous resources both from the larger system and from the rest of the world: |F(Xi )| |F ∗ (Xi ) ∪ F RW (Xi )| |F ∗ (Xi )|  = =   |R(Xi ) ∪ N(Xi )| |R(Xi ) ∪ N(Xi )| R(Xi ) ∪ N(Xi )

EIR(Xi ) =

+

|F RW (Xi )| |R(Xi ) ∪ N(Xi )|

As already noted for the ELR, with regard to the local nonrenewable sources, we consider the total emergy flow (N). Concerning the emergy flow per unit area (ED), the Emergy per Person (EpP), we have: ED(Xi ) =

|U(Xi )| |Area|

EpP(Xi ) =

|U(Xi )| |Population|

With regard to the Emergy to Money Ratio (EMR) we have EMR(Xi ) =

|U(Xi )| |GDP(Xi )|

These calculations using the language of sets, show that the emergy indices cannot be simply passed from a system to the next larger system that contains it. We can state that considering a system and the subsystems that compose it by themselves and as a part of the larger system that contains them, emergy indices can be compared only among the larger system and the subsystems as part of it. There is no relation between the indices at the subsystem level (by themselves) and

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

the indices of the larger system. To clarify better we can say that, in the first case, an index of EU27 is a weighted average of the same index calculated at the country level. In the second case we can imagine for example that EU27 decides not to import any good from outside systems, allowing internal trade: in this case F of EU27 is 0, / 0. This would imply an while the F of each subsystem would be = inconsistency between the indicators at different scales.

13

Appendix.

2. Nonrenewable sources. This is the union of all non-renewable sources within the system. In this case it is the sum of all internal production of fuels and minerals and nuclear electricity. It includes also the net loss of topsoil. 3. In State non- renewable used represents the use of nonrenewable resources from within the system, in particular of fuels, metals and minerals. 4. Dispersed rural sources represent the soil erosion in agricultural areas. 5. Extracted materials represent all extracted fuels and minerals within the system. 6. Concentrated use is the emergy of fuels and minerals consumed within the system along with the emergy used form nuclear electricity and hydropower. It includes consumption of domestic and imported fuels and minerals, but not exports. 7. Total imported flows include all imported materials from outside the system, i.e. fuels, minerals, goods and services. 8. This item represents imported goods without considering fuels and minerals 9. Total emergy used is calculated considering concentrated and dispersed use; in particular it is calculated as the sum of R, N0 , Cuse and net imports, G. 10. Environmental Loading Ratio considering used emergy flows. It is (N0 + Cuse + G)/R. 11. Emergy density is calculated considering total used emergy per area. 12. Emergy per Person is calculated considering total emergy used divided by the population. 13. Emergy Investment Ratio calculated considering used flows: F/(R + N0 + Nused ). 14. Emergy Yield Ratio calculated in traditional manner: U/F. 15. The fraction of “purchased” emergy from outside the system: F/U. 16. Emergy to Money Ratio is calculated as the ratio between the emergy used to the GDP of the system.

A1. Notes for summary Table 10 These notes are valid for the analyses of all three hierarchical levels, because they explain how summary variables and indices have been calculated.

A2. References for transformities or other UEVs In this section all transformities and UEVs used in this work are listed. They are all converted to 9.26E + 24 semj/yr emergy baseline (Campbell, 2000).

6. Conclusion In this paper, emergy evaluation using set theory was applied to a nested territorial system with three levels of organization, i.e., the European Union, Italy and Tuscany. In particular, emergy indices were calculated using the new definition of emergy flows afforded by sets for each level of organization and then indices from the various levels were compared with each other. The data analysis indicated that the set of imported flows (F) plays a very important role in the emergy evaluation and in the calculation of indices. In particular, we showed how this set changes when the system under study is considered as a system or as a part of the larger system that contains it. This agrees with the definition of the set of imported flows: when changing the level or scale in a hierarchically organized system, the set of imported flows changes its cardinality. For this reason, it is not possible to transfer emergy indices through the levels and it is also not possible to compare them to each other, when they refer to different levels of organization. In conclusion, in making an emergy evaluation of nested systems one might think that indices in the system, being intensive quantities, can be seen as the average of their respective indices in the subsystems, but as we have shown from these analyses, this is not true. This is clearly evident not only from the summary tables performed for each system but also from the new formulas expressed by the language of sets.

1. Renewable sources. This is the union between the maximum flow on land and on continental shelf area. In this case it is equal to the sum of two items. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Solar radiation Rain, chemical Rain, geopotential Wind Geothermal heat Waves Tides

A2.1 Renewable sources

1.00E + 00 semj/g 1.81E + 04 semj/g 1.01E + 04 semj/g 1.43E + 03 semj/g 6.00E + 03 semj/g 2.99E + 04 semj/g 2.43E + 04 semj/g

Odum et al. (2000), folio #1 Odum (1996)–Campbell (2003) Odum (1996)–Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Odum et al. (2000), folio #1 Odum (2000), folio #2 Odum et al. (2000), folio #1 Campbell (2000)

A2.2. Local non-renewable sources 8 9 10 11

Natural gas Oil Coal Metals Bauxite Alumina Gold Iron Ore Lead Mercury Molybdenum Nickel

4.35E + 04 semj/g 5.42E + 04 semj/g 3.92E + 04 semj/g

Bastianoni et al. (2005a) Bastianoni et al. (2009) Odum (1996)

9.81E + 08 semj/g 3.16E + 09 semj/g 2.92E + 11 semj/g 7.02E + 09 semj/g 2.81E + 11 semj/g 2.35E + 13 semj/g 4.09E + 11 semj/g 1.17E + 11 semj/g

Odum (1996) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007)

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

14

12

13

Platinum Palladium Rare Earths Manganese Titanium Vanadium Zinc Zirconium Industrial minerals Antimony Barytes Bromine Chromium Clays, crude Diamond Diatomite Feldspar Fluorspar Graphite Gypsum Iodine Magnesite and magnesia Mica Phosphate rock Potash Salt Sand and gravel Sulfur and Pyrites Talc Net loss of topsoil

2.16E + 11 semj/g 7.20E + 10 semj/g 7.52E + 09 semj/g 2.05E + 11 semj/g 3.74E + 10 semj/g 4.22E + 10 semj/g 4.11E + 10 semj/g 1.86E + 10 semj/g

Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007)

2.46E + 12 semj/g 9.30E + 11 semj/g 2.02E + 12 semj/g 8.77E + 10 semj/g 1.96E + 09 semj/g 2.49E + 14 semj/g 9.81E + 08 semj/g 9.40E + 08 semj/g 4.90E + 08 semj/g 9.80E + 08 semj/g 1.67E + 09 semj/g 2.84E + 11 semj/g 3.59E + 09 semj/g 4.90E + 08 semj/g 1.75E + 10 semj/g 1.71E + 09 semj/g 6.43E + 08 semj/g 1.31E + 09 semj/g 8.89E + 10 semj/g 1.64E + 10 semj/g 7.26E + 04 semj/g

Campbell and Lu (2009), Cohen et al. (2007) Campbell and Lu (2009), Cohen et al. (2007) Campbell and Lu (2009), Cohen et al. (2007) Cohen et al. (2007) Campbell and Lu (2009), Odum (1996) Campbell unpublished calculations Campbell and Lu (2009), Odum (1996) Campbell and Lu (2009), Odum (1996) Campbell and Lu (2009), Odum (1996) Campbell and Lu (2009), Odum (1996) Campbell and Lu (2009) Campbell and Lu (2009), Cohen et al. (2007) Campbell and Lu (2009), Cohen et al. (2007) Campbell and Lu (2009), Odum (1996) Campbell and Lu (2009), Odum (1996) Campbell and Lu (2009), Odum (1996) Babic (2005) Campbell and Lu (2009), Campbell et al. (2005) Campbell and Lu (2009) Campbell and Lu (2009) Odum (1996)

A2.3 Imports and exports categories a. Foods and agricultural products Cereals Oily seeds Leguminous Rice Vegetables Sugar beet Potatos Sugar cane Tobacco Fiber crops Flowers and other non-perennial crops Grapes Tropical and subtropical fruits Citrus fruit Pome fruits and stone fruits Other fruit trees, bush fruits and nuts Oleaginous fruits Beverage crops Spices, aromatic,drug and pharmaceutical crops Other perennial crops Live plants Products of forestry Processed and preserved fruit and vegetables Vegetable and animal oils and fats Dairy products Grain mill products, starches and starch products Bakery and farinaceous products Other food products Prepared animal feeds Distilled, rectified and blended alcoholic beverages Wine from grapes Cider and other fruit wines Other non-distilled fermented beverages Beer Malt Soft drinks, mineral waters b. Livestock, meat and fish Live animals and animal products Products of fishing and aquaculture Preserved meat and meat products c. Chemicals (avg. organic and inorganic) d. Transport equipment e. Rubber and plastic (avg. rubber and plastic)

7.96E + 08 semj/g 1.79E + 09 semj/g 8.13E + 04 semj/g 7.63E + 04 semj/g 6.38E + 09 semj/g 8.33E + 04 semj/g 1.64E + 09 semj/g 2.23E + 08 semj/g 6.50E + 05 semj/g 1.33E + 10 semj/g 2.77E + 09 semj/g 9.72E + 08 semj/g 8.42E + 08 semj/g 1.18E + 09 semj/g 8.42E + 08 semj/g 8.42E + 08 semj/g 5.20E + 05 semj/g 1.96E + 06 semj/g 1.97E + 05 semj/g 1.02E + 05 semj/g 2.77E + 09 semj/g 3.77E + 08 semj/g 3.19E + 09 semj/g 1.12E + 06 semj/g 1.08E + 10 semj/g 3.36E + 09 semj/g 6.19E + 09 semj/g 7.84E + 09 semj/g 5.24E + 09 semj/g 5.68E + 08 semj/g 2.75E + 09 semj/g 1.18E + 09 semj/g 5.68E + 08 semj/g 1.65E + 08 semj/g 3.46E + 09 semj/g 1.20E + 08 semj/g

Castellini et al. (2006) Bastianoni et al. (2001) Pulselli et al. (2008) Ulgiati et al. (1993) Pulselli (2010) Ulgiati et al. (1993) Brandt-Williams (2001) Brandt-Williams (2001) Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Pulselli et al. (2008) Bastianoni et al. (2001) Niccolucci et al. (2010) La Rosa et al. (2008) Niccolucci et al. (2010) Niccolucci et al. (2010) Bastianoni et al. (2001) Cuadra and Rydberg (2006) Pulselli et al. (2008) Ulgiati et al. (1993) Pulselli et al. (2008) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Pizzigallo et al. (2008) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010)

3.11E + 06 semj/g 1.60E + 10 semj/g 3.11E + 06 semj/g 5.09E + 09 semj/g 7.76E + 09 semj/g 4.17E + 09 semj/g

Ulgiati et al. (1993) Bastianoni et al. (2005b) Ulgiati et al. (1993) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010) Campbell et al. (2010)

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

f. Other non metallic minerals products Glass and glass products Refractory products Clay building materials Other porcelain and ceramic products Cement, lime and plaster Articles of concrete, cement and plaster Cut, shaped and finished stone Abrasive products and non-metallic minerals products n.e.c. g. Other finished products Tobacco products Textiles

8.25E + 07 semj/g 2.81E + 09 semj/g 2.15E + 09 semj/g 2.15E + 09 semj/g 1.78E + 09 semj/g 1.06E + 09 semj/g 9.83E + 08 semj/g 9.83E + 08 semj/g

15

Pulselli et al. (2007) Pulselli et al. (2007) Pulselli et al. (2007) Pulselli et al. (2007) Pulselli et al. (2008) Pulselli et al. (2007) Pulselli et al. (2007) Pulselli et al. (2007)

6.50E + 05 semj/g 7.55E + 10 semj/g

Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Campbell et al. (2005), Pulselli (2010) Wearing apparel 7.55E + 10 semj/g Campbell et al. (2005), Pulselli (2010) Leather and related products (not wear) 9.01E + 10 semj/g Campbell et al. (2005), Pulselli (2010) Wood and products of wood and cork. . . 3.97E + 08 semj/g Castellini et al. (2006), Pulselli (2010) Paper and paper products 2.05E + 09 semj/g Tilley (1999), Pulselli (2010) Printed products 4.95E + 09 semj/g Tilley (1999), Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Coke and petroleum refining products 2.64E + 09 semj/g Bastianoni et al. (2009) Basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations 2.75E + 09 semj/g Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Basic metals and fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 5.91E + 09 semj/g Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Computer, electronic and optical products 1.91E + 10 semj/g Campbell et al. (2010) Electrical equipment and non electric domestic appliances Campbell and Ohrt (2009) 1.47E + 10 semj/g Machinery and equipment n.e.c. 4.02E + 09 semj/g Campbell et al. (2010) Furniture 2.89E + 09 semj/g Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Other products of manufacturing 1.61E + 09 semj/g Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning 9.63E + 10 semj/g Campbell et al. (2010) h. Because it does not exist any detail regarding products in this category, it has not been possible to apply specific emergy to each product in each category and it has been chosen to use an average value. This value is the average between specific emergies used for imported (and exported) products to (and from) Italy. In particular, this average has been used concerning agricultural products, energetic and non-energetic minerals and foods, beverages and tobacco products.

A2.4 Local production a. Electricity production: UEVs for electricity are based on Caruso et al. (2001) in which the main value is 1.54E + 05 semj/J and it has been used as average value for electricity, while 1.00E + 05 semj/J is the UEV for hydroelectricity. For electricity production within EU27, Itlay and Tuscany UEVs have been updated basing on data in 2008. 1.66E + 05 semj/J Morandi (2012) (based on Caruso et al., 2001) a1. Electricity production (EU27) 1.49E + 05 semj/J Morandi (2012) (based on Caruso et al., 2001) a2. Electricity production (Italy) Morandi (2012) (based on Caruso et al., 2001) 1.48E + 05 semj/J a3. Electricity production (Tuscany) b. Agricultural production 7.96E + 08 semj/J Castellini et al. (2006) Cereals Pulses 1.42E + 10 semj/J Brandt-Williams (2001) Potatos 1.64E + 09 semj/J Brandt-Williams (2001) 6.38E + 09 semj/J Brandt-Williams (2001) Vegetables Sugar beet 8.33E + 04 semj/J Ulgiati et al. (1993) Hemp 1.02E + 05 semj/J Ulgiati et al. (1993) Rape seed 9.47E + 08 semj/J Rugani et al., (2011) Sunflowers 7.91E + 05 semj/J Bastianoni et al. (2001) Soy 5.77E + 09 semj/J Brandt-Williams (2001) Fruit 8.42E + 08 semj/J Niccolucci et al. (2010) Citrus fruit 8.42E + 08 semj/J Niccolucci et al. (2010) Vine 9.91E + 08 semj/J Bastianoni et al. (2001) Olive tree 5.20E + 05 semj/J Bastianoni et al. (2001) Forage 7.85E + 04 semj/J Bastianoni et al. (2001) Cereals 7.96E + 08 semj/J Castellini et al. (2006) Pulses 1.42E + 10 semj/J Brandt-Williams (2001) c. Livestock production 7.62E + 05 semj/J Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Beef (meat) Sheep and goat (meat) 5.21E + 05 semj/J Haden (2002) Pork (meat) 2.09E + 06 semj/J Cavalett et al. (2006) Horse (meat) 3.36E + 06 semj/J Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Chicken 4.04E + 09 semj/J Castellini et al. (2006) Rabbits, venison & ostrich 3.36E + 06 semj/J Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Milk 1.16E + 09 semj/J Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Butter 1.28E + 06 semj/J Cohen et al. (2006) Cheese 4.78E + 09 semj/J Campbell et al. (2010) Eggs 2.50E + 09 semj/J Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Greasy wool 3.73E + 06 semj/J Odum (1996) d. Fisheries production 1.60E + 10 semj/g Bastianoni et al. (2005b) e. Net timber growth 2.01E + 04 semj/J Tilley (1999) f. Net timber harvest 7.00E + 04 semj/J Tilley (1999)

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001

G Model ECOMOD-7498; No. of Pages 16 16

ARTICLE IN PRESS F. Morandi et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

References Babic, J., 2005. Emergy analysis of the salt production process at the Seˇcovlje Saltpans, Slovenia. In: Brown, M.T., Bardi, E., Campbell, D.E., Comar, V., Haung, S., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 3: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Emergy Analysis Research Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, Department of environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, pp. 519–533. Bastianoni, S., 2008. Ecoexergy to Emergy flow ratio. Encyclopedia of Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 979–983. Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N., Panzieri, M., Tiezzi, E., 2001. Sustainability assessment of a farm in the Chianti area (Italy). J. Clean Prod. 9, 365–373. Bastianoni, S., Campbell, D., Susani, L., Tiezzi, E., 2005a. The solar transformity of oil and petroleum natural gas. Ecol. Model. 186, 212–220. Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N., Niccolucci, V., Pulselli, F.M., 2005b. Environmental accounting for the lagoon of Venice and the case of fishing. Anal. Chim. 95, 143–152. Bastianoni, S., Pulselli, R.M., Rugani, B., Niccolucci:, V., 2009. The measure of unsustainability in emergy evaluation. In: Brown, M.T., Sweeney, S., Campbell, D.E., Huang, S., Ortega, E., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 5: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Emergy Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 49–54. Bastianoni, S., Morandi, F., Flaminio, T., Pulselli, R.M., Tiezzi, E.B.P., 2011. Emergy and emergy algebra explained by means of ingenuous set theory. Ecol. Model. 222, 2903–2907. Brandt-Williams, S.L., 2001. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #4. Emergy of Florida Agriculture (revised 2002). Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, pp. 40. Brown, M.T., Herendeen, R.A., 1996. Embodied energy analysis and EMERGY analysis: a comparative view. Ecol. Econ. 19, 219–235. Brown, M.T., McClanahan, T., 1996. Emergy analysis perspectives for Thailand and Mekong river dam proposals. Ecol. Model. 91, 105–130. Campbell, D.E., 2000. A revised solar transformity for tidal energy received by the earth and dissipated globally: implications for emergy analysis. In: Brown, M.T., Brandt-Williams, S.L., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 1: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Emergy Analysis Research Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, Department of environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, p. 255-264. Campbell, D.E., 2003. A note on the uncertainty in estimates of transformities based on global water budgets. In: Brown, M.T., Odum, H.T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 2: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the Second Biennial Emergy Analysis Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 349–353. Campbell, D.E., Garmestani, A.S., 2012. An energy systems view of sustainability: Emergy evaluation of the San Luis Basin, Colorado. J. Environ. Manag. 95, 72–97. Campbell, D.E., Lu, H.F., 2009. The emergy to money ratio of the United States from 1900 to 2007. In: Brown, M.T., et al. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 5: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the 5th Biennal Emergy Conference, January 31–February 2, 2008. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Campbell, D.E., Ohrt, A., 2009. Environmental Accounting using Emergy: Evaluation of Minnesota., pp. 138, USEPA Project Report, EPA/600/R-09/002. Campbell, D.E., Brandt-Williams, S., Meisch, M., 2005. Environmental Accounting using Emergy: Evaluation of the State of West Virginia. EPA600/R-05/006. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island. Campbell, D.E., Garmestani, A.S., Hopton, M.E., 2010. Appendix 5-C. In: Heberling, M.T., Hopton, M.E. (Eds.), San Luis Basin Sustainability Metrics Project: A Methodology for Evaluating Regional Sustainability. Report number EP A/600/R10/182 of the Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory, pp. 119–138, Chapter 5. Caruso, C., Catenacci, G., Marchettini, N., Principi, I., Tiezzi, E., 2001. Emergy based analysis of Italian electricity system production. J. Ther. Anal. Calorim. 66, 265–272. Castellini, C., Bastianoni, S., Granai, C., Dal Bosco, A., Brunetti, M., 2006. Sustainability of poultry production using the emergy approach: comparison of conventional and organic rearing systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 343–350. Cavalett, O., Ferraz de Queiroz, J., Ortega, E., 2006. Emergy assessment of integrated production systems of grains, pig and fish in small farms in the South Brazil. Ecol. Model. 193, 205–224. Cialani, C., Russi, D., Ulgiati, S., 2005. Investigating a 20-year national economic dynamics by means of emergy-based indicators. In: Brown, M.T., et al. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 3: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the 3rd Biennal Emegy Conference, January 29–31, 2004. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, pp. 401–416.

Cohen, M.J., Brown, M.T., Shepherd, K.D., 2006. Estimating the environmental costs of soil erosion at multiple scales in Kenya using emergy synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 249–269. Cohen, M.J., Sweeney, S., Brown, M.T., 2007. Computing the unit emergy value for crustal elements. In: Brown, M.T., Bardi, E., Campbell, D.E., Comar, V., Huang, S.L., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 4: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th Biennal Emergy Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 16.1–16.11. Cuadra, M., Rydberg, T., 2006. Emergy evaluation on the production, processing and export of coffee in Nicaragua. Ecol. Model. 196, 421–433. Eurostat Database. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/ search database. Haden, A.C., 2002. Emergy Analysis of Food Production at S&S Homestead Farm. S&S Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2143 Lopez Sound Rd., Lopez Island, WA 98261, http://www.sshomestead.org/publications ISTAT, 2010. Annuario Statistico Italiano, Rome, Italy. ISTAT Database, www.istat.it. La Rosa, A.D., Siracusa, G., Cavallaro, R., 2008. Emergy evaluation of Sicilian red orange production. A comparison between organic and conventional farming. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1907–1914. Morandi, F., (PhD dissertation) 2012. A New Insight to Emergy by Means of Set Theory: Theoretical and Applicative Aspects. University of Siena, Italy. Morandi, F., Campbell, D.E., Pulselli, R.M., Bastianoni, S., 2013. Using the language of Sets to describe nested systems in emergy evaluations. Ecol. Model. 265, 85–98. Morandi, F., Campbell, D.E., Bastianoni, S., 2014. Set theory applied to uniquely define the inputs to territorial systems in emergy analyses. Ecol. Model. 271, 149–157. NEAD, The National Environmental Accounting Database, Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida (http://www.cep.ees.ufl.edu/nead/). Niccolucci, V., Pulselli, R.M., Focardi, S., Bastianoni, S., 2010. Integrated indicators for evaluating ecosystem health: an application to agricultural system. In: Jorgensen, S.E., Xu, F., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health. CRC Press. Odum, H.T., 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. John Wiley, NY, pp. 644. Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Odum, H.T., 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #2 Emergy of Global Processes. Center of Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, pp. 30. Odum, H.T., Odum, E.C. (Eds.), 1983. Energy Analysis Overview of Nations. Working Paper WP-83-82. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, p. 469. Odum, H.T., Lavine, M.J., Wang, F.C., Miller, M.A., Alexander Jr., J.F., Butler, T., 1983. A Manual for Using Energy Analysis for Plant Siting with an Appendix on Energy Analysis of Environmental Values. Final report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2443 FINB-6155. Energy Analysis Workshop. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 221. Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T., Brandt-Williams, S., 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #1. Introduction and Global Budget. Center of Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, pp. 16. Pizzigallo, A.C.I., Granai, C., Borsa, S., 2008. The joint use of LCA and emergy evaluation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. J. Environ. Manag. 86, 396–406. Pulselli, R.M., 2010. Integrating emergy evaluation and geographic information systems for monitoring resource use in the Abruzzo region (Italy). J. Environ. Manag. 91, 2349–2357. Pulselli, R.M., Simoncini, E., Pulselli, F.M., Bastianoni, S., 2007. Emergy analysis of building manufacturing, maintenance and use: em-building indices to evaluate housing sustainability. Energy Build. 39, 620–628. Pulselli, R.M., Pulselli, F.M., Rustici, M., 2008. Emergy accounting of the Province of Siena: towards a thermodynamic geography for regional studies. J. Environ. Manag. 86, 342–353. Rugani, B., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Mutel, C., Bastianoni, S., Hellweg, S., 2011. Solar energy demenad (SED) of commodity life cycles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 5426–5433. Sciencemann, D.M., 1997. Letters to the editor: emergy definition. Ecol. Eng. 9, 209–212. Tilley, D.R., (PhD Dissertation) 1999. Emergy Basis of Forest Systems. University of Florida, UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, MI. Ulgiati, S., Odum, H.T., Bastianoni, S., 1993. Emergy analysis of Italian agricultural system. The role of energy quality and environmental inputs. In: Bonati, L., Cosentino, U., Moro, G., Pitea, D., Schiraldi, A. (Eds.), Trends in Ecological Physical Chemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 187–215. Ulgiati, S., Odum, H.T., Bastianoni, S., 1994. Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability: an emergy analysis of Italy. Ecol. Model. 73, 215–268. Ulgiati, S., Cassano, M., Pavoletti, M., 1995. Bridging nature and economy. The energy basis of growth and development in Italy. In: Tiezzi, E., SUS.T.E.E. (Eds.), Report; EC Environmental Research Program C.n◦ EV5V-CT92-0152, 2. , pp. 6–74, Unpublished.

Please cite this article in press as: Morandi, F., et al., Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators. Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.04.001