Despite achieving remarkable development, China’s agricultural economy has been under severe environmental pressure. Based on previous studies, the present study further considers the sources of agricultural carbon emissions in depth, estimates China’s agricultural carbon emissions from 1997 to 2016, and analyzes the agricultural pollution faced by China and its provinces. The study estimates the amount and intensity of agricultural carbon emissions in China from five carbon sources—agricultural materials, rice planting, soil N₂O, livestock and poultry farming, and straw burning—and analyzes their spatial and temporal characteristics. The following results were obtained: (1) between 1997 and 2016, the amount of agricultural carbon emissions in China generally increased, while the intensity of agricultural carbon emissions decreased; (2) in the same period, the amount of carbon emissions from each category of carbon source generally increased, with the exception of rice planting; however, the amount of emissions fluctuated; (3) the amount and intensity of carbon emissions varied greatly among provinces; (4) the emissions from different categories of carbon source showed different concentration trends and agglomeration forms; (5) China’s agricultural carbon emissions showed obvious spatial correlation, which overall was high–high agglomeration; however, its carbon emissions gradually weakened, and the spatial agglomeration of agricultural carbon emissions in each province changed between 1997 and 2016.

Background: The rapid aging of populations in some countries has led to a growing number of the disabled elderly, creating a huge need for Long-Term Care (LTC) and meeting its costs, which is a heavy economic burden on the families of the disabled elderly and governments. Therefore, the measurement of Long-Term Care (LTC) costs has become an important basis for the government to formulate Long-Term Care (LTC) policies, and academic research on Long-Term Care (LTC) costs is also in the process of continuous development and deepening. Methods: This is a systematic review that aims to examine the evidence published in the last decade (2010–2019) regarding the comparison of the measurement of Long-Term Care (LTC) costs between China and other countries. Results: Eighteen Chinese studies and 17 other countries’ studies were included in this review. Most Chinese scholars estimated long-term care costs based on the degree of disability among the disabled elderly. However, the studies of European and American countries are more and more in-depth and comprehensive, and more detailed regarding the post-care cost of specific diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and epilepsy. Conclusion: In future academic research, we should fully consider the human value of long-term care providers and further study the differences in the long-term care costs of different chronic diseases. In China’s future policymaking, according to the experience of Germany, Sweden, and other countries, it may be an effective way to develop private long-term care insurance and realize the effective complementarity between private long-term care insurance and public long-term care insurance (LTCI).