Benefit Analysis of Economic and Social Water Supply in Xi’an Based on the Emergy Method
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Area
2.2. Emergy Theory
2.2.1. Raw-Data-Processing Model
2.2.2. Multisource Water-Body-Transformity Model
- The natural-water-body-transformity model
- 2.
- Engineering-water-body-transformity model
2.2.3. Benefit Model of Economic and Social Water Supply
- Water contribution rate (WCRi)
- 2.
- Water-supply-benefit model
3. Results
3.1. Raw Data Processing
3.2. Natural- and Engineering-Water-Body Transformities
3.3. Benefits of Economic and Social Water Supply in Xi’an
3.3.1. Benefits of Economic Water Supply in Xi’an
3.3.2. Benefits of Social Water Supply in Xi’an
4. Discussion
4.1. Inputs and Outputs in Economic System
- Input and output in industrial system
- 2.
- Input and output in agricultural system
- 3.
- Input and output in tertiary-industry system
4.2. Inputs and Outputs in Social System
4.3. Differences in Water-Supply Benefits among Industries
5. Conclusions
- The dependence of industrial production on the water resources in Xi’an from 2014 to 2020 was relatively stable. Compared to other industries, the B1 and the WRV1 were the largest, and the socioeconomic value of the water resources mainly came from industrial production. In the industrial system, the WCR1 and the EO1 have a medium positive correlation with each other, and ρ1 was 0.52, which still has room for improvement, compared to ρ2 and ρ3. It can be seen that there might be a certain degree of waste of industrial water. The government should further strengthen the specification of the industrial water, vigorously develop water-saving technology, and actively streamline the production process, so as to improve the water-use efficiency and obtain greater B1 and total benefits;
- Compared to other industries, the input of the water resources into the agricultural system in Xi’an from 2014 to 2020 was the largest, and the agricultural production was extremely dependent on the water supply. However, the B2 and the WRV2 were lower than the B1 and the WRV1, which were related to the different character of the water-use sector, and this phenomenon was in line with the law of the market economy. There was a strong positive correlation between the WCR2 and the EO2 (ρ2 = 0.72), which indicates that, in the agricultural system, the WCR2 closely affects the EO2. The more water resources that are input into a certain range, the greater the B2 and total benefits will be;
- In the tertiary industry, although the B3 was small because of the small WCR3, the WRV3 was second only to industry and it had an increasing trend year by year, and there was a very strong positive correlation between the WCR3 and the EO3 (ρ3 = 0.85); all showed high levels of water-use efficiency;
- In the social system, the B4 and the WRV4 were the largest, mainly because water resources, as an indispensable basic resource for human life, not only affect people’s quality of life, to a great extent, but are also the decisive factor for the development of people’s lives, and they play a significant role in social security;
- There were obvious differences in the benefits and the value of the water resources among various industries. The industrial water supply had the greatest benefits and unit-water value, followed by agriculture, the domestic system, the tertiary industry, and others. Therefore, it is very important to accurately evaluate the value and benefits of water resources in industries, which can be used not only as a reference for the government to formulate water prices, but also to help the relevant departments coordinate and alleviate the water contradiction between various industries and allocate water resources reasonably.
- With regard to the water-resource ecosystem and the socioeconomic system as a whole: building an ecological and socioeconomic composite network of water resources, showing the process of energy circulation and flow, and providing a research basis for the value accounting of water resources;
- On the basis of emergy theory, the basic framework and model of the urban socioeconomic water-supply-benefit and water-resource-value research are put forward. This enriches the research methods for the water-resource value;
- On the basis of the basic principle of the emergy transformity calculation, by analyzing the energy change in the process of the water-resource circulation, the water body is divided into the natural water body and the engineering water body, which further refines the emergy calculation process and solves the problem of how to measure the emergy transformity of multisource water bodies in the emergy calculation.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Guan, X.; Jiang, P.; Meng, Y.; Qin, H.; Lv, H. Study on Production, Domestic and Ecological Benefits of Reservoir Water Supply Based on Emergy Analysis. Processes 2020, 8, 1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, B.; Liu, J.L.; Bao, K.; Sun, B. Water fluxes of Nenjiang River Basin with ecological network analysis: Conflict and coordination between agricultural development and wetland restoration. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, L.M.; Zhao, L.; Pan, L.; Chen, X.D. Optimal water resource allocation based on stability—Considering the correlation between water consumption and output value in different industries. Water Supply 2020, 20, 2499–2513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.Y.; Cui, L.B.; Dou, M.; Ali, A. Water resources allocation model based on ecological priority in the arid region. Environ. Res. 2021, 199, 111201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, X.J.; Wu, X.; Xie, X.M.; Wei, C.J.; Li, L.Q.; Zhang, J.J. Synergetic Theory-Based Water Resource Allocation Model. Water Resour. Manag. 2021, 35, 2053–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bierkens, M.F.P.; Reinhard, S.; de Bruijn, J.A.; Veninga, W.; Wada, Y. The Shadow Price of Irrigation Water in Major Groundwater-Depleting Countries. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 4266–4287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, X.L.; Chen, X.K.; Wang, S.Y. Evaluating and Predicting Shadow Prices of Water Resources in China and Its Nine Major River Basins. Water Resour. Manag. 2009, 23, 1467–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, C.H.; Gan, H.; Zhang, X.J.; Jia, L. Research on water resources pricing method and practiceⅡ: Analysis of water price in Haihe River Basin. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2012, 43, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, X.B.; Lin, B.Q. The shadow prices and demand elasticities of agricultural water in China: A StoNED-based analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Y.; Song, X.F.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, Y.H.; Yang, L.H.; Han, D.M.; Pu, H.M. Study on water resources value in the intake area of the South-to-North water diversion project based on water resources optimization. South North Water Transf. Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 16, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcon, F.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Pedrero, F.; Alarcon, J.J.; de Miguel, M.D. Incorporating Non-market Benefits of Reclaimed Water into Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Case Study of Irrigated Mandarin Crops in southern Spain. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 1809–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arborea, S.; Giannoccaro, G.; de Gennaro, B.C.; Iacobellis, V.; Piccinni, A.F. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Wastewater Reuse in Puglia, Southern Italy. Water 2017, 9, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arena, C.; Genco, M.; Mazzola, M.R. Environmental Benefits and Economical Sustainability of Urban Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation-A Cost-Benefit Analysis of an Existing Reuse Project in Puglia, Italy. Water 2020, 12, 2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, F.A. Economics in integrated water management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24, 948–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dallman, S.; Chaudhry, A.M.; Muleta, M.K.; Lee, J. The Value of Rain: Benefit-Cost Analysis of Rainwater Harvesting Systems. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 4415–4428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dallman, S.; Chaudhry, A.M.; Muleta, M.K.; Lee, J. Is Rainwater Harvesting Worthwhile? A Benefit-Cost Analysis. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, J.B.; Liu, C.M.; Zheng, H.X. Cost-benefit analysis for urban rainwater harvesting in Beijing. Water Int. 2010, 35, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Downing, J.A.; Polasky, S.; Olmstead, S.M.; Newbold, S.C. Protecting local water quality has global benefits. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, M.S.; Zhao, M. Research on an Improved Economic Value Estimation Model for Crop Irrigation Water in Arid Areas: From the Perspective of Water-Crop Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, L.N.; Lu, W.X.; Yang, Q.C.; Martin, J.D.; Li, D. Ecological Compensation Estimation of Soil and Water Conservation Based on Cost-Benefit Analysis. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 2709–2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genius, M.; Hatzaki, E.; Kouromichelaki, E.M.; Kouvakis, G.; Nikiforaki, S.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Evaluating Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Potable Water Quality and Quantity. Water Resour. Manag. 2008, 22, 1825–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, W.S.; Yoo, S.H.; Kim, J. Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Tap Water Supply Service in Urban Areas: The Case of Korea. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loomis, J.; Santiago, L. Economic Valuation of Beach Quality Improvements: Comparing Incremental Attribute Values Estimated from Two Stated Preference Valuation Methods. Coast. Manag. 2013, 41, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumbi, A.W.; Watanabe, T. Cost Estimations of Water Pollution for the Adoption of Suitable Water Treatment Technology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, F.; Baoligao, B.; Jia, J. Benefits of Xin’an River Water Resources and Ecological Compensation. Adv. Mater. Res. 2015, 1073, 1660–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijk, D.V.; Siber, R.; Brouwer, R.; Logar, I.; Sanadgol, D. Valuing water resources in Switzerland using a hedonic price model. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 3510–3526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chi, Y.; Xue, L.; Zhang, H. Comprehensive benefit analysis of regional water resources based on multi-objective evaluation. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 108, 032040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.X.; Cheng, L.; Tian, H.L.; Liu, X.H. Water supply eco-economic benefit evaluation of middle route of south-to-north water diversion project in Hebei Water-recipient Area. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 191, 012064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, B.; Li, H.E.; Yue, S.Y.; Huang, K. A conceptual decision-making for the ecological base flow of rivers considering the economic value of ecosystem services of rivers in water shortage area of Northwest China. J. Hydrol. 2019, 578, 124126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, S.Y.; Li, H.E.; Cheng, B.; Gao, Z.Y. The Value of Environmental Base Flow in Water-Scarce Basins: A Case Study of Wei River Basin, Northwest China. Water 2018, 10, 848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Di, D.; Wu, Z.; Guo, X.; Lv, C.; Wang, H. Value Stream Analysis and Emergy Evaluation of the Water Resource Eco-Economic System in the Yellow River Basin. Water 2019, 11, 710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, Z.; Di, D.; Lv, C.; Guo, X.; Wang, H. Defining and evaluating the social value of regional water resources in terms of emergy. Water Policy 2018, 21, 7390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, S.F.; Qin, P.; Lu, H.F. Emergy Analysis of Ecological-Economic System; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Odum, H.T. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, G.Y.; Casazza, M.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy analysis of urban domestic water metabolism: A case study in Beijing (China). J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 714–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paoli, C.; Vassallo, P.; Dapueto, G.; Fanciulli, G.; Massa, F.; Venturini, S.; Povero, P. The economic revenues and the emergy costs of cruise tourism. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 1462–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kocjancic, T.; Debeljak, M.; Zgajnar, J.; Juvancic, L. Incorporation of emergy into multiple-criteria decision analysis for sustainable and resilient structure of dairy farms in Slovenia. Agric. Syst. 2018, 164, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.X.; Ma, L. Environmental Sustainability Assessment of a New Sewage Treatment Plant in China Based on Infrastructure Construction and Operation Phases Emergy Analysis. Water 2020, 12, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.H.; Shen, J.M.; Wang, Y.Q.; Qi, Y.; Liao, W.J.; Shui, W.; Li, L.; Qi, H.; Yu, X.Y. An environmental sustainability assessment of China’s cement industry based on emergy. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 452–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, S.Z.; Geng, Y.; Kong, H.N.; Liu, B.; Tian, X.; Chen, W.; Qian, Y.Y.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy-based sustainability evaluation of Erhai Lake Basin in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winfrey, B.K.; Tilley, D.R. An emergy-based treatment sustainability index for evaluating waste treatment systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4485–4496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, S.M.; Liu, G.Y.; Yang, Q.; Casazza, M.; Agostinho, F.; Giannetti, B.F. Sustainability assessment of agriculture production systems in Pakistan: A provincial-scale energy-based evaluation. Ecol. Model. 2021, 455, 109654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, H.Y.; Zhuang, M.F.; Geng, Y.; Wu, F.; Dong, H.J. Emergy-based ecological footprint analysis for a mega-city: The dynamic changes of Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, W.J.; Wang, X.M.; Li, X.K.; He, C.C. Sustainability evaluation based on the emergy ecological footprint method: A case study of Qingdao, China, from 2004 to 2014. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 1249–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaklic, T.; Juvancic, L.; Kavcic, S.; Debeljak, M. Complementarity of socio-economic and emergy evaluation of agricultural production systems: The case of Slovenian dairy sector. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, M.; Marvuglia, A.; Geng, Y.; Robins, D.; Pan, H.Y.; Song, X.Q.; Yu, Z.J.; Sun, H.P. Accounting emergy-based sustainability of crops production in India and Pakistan over first decade of the 21st century. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viglia, S.; Civitillo, D.F.; Cacciapuoti, G.; Ulgiati, S. Indicators of environmental loading and sustainability of urban systems. An emergy-based environmental footprint. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.Y.; Song, J.X.; Cheng, D.D.; Xia, J.; Li, Q.; Ahamad, M.I. Comprehensive evaluation and scenario simulation for the water resources carrying capacity in Xi’an city, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 230, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, B. Study on the Effective Usage of Urban Water Resources of Xi’an City; Chang’an University: Xi’an, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.Y.; Li, J.; Gao, Z.Y.; Yang, M.; Qin, K.Y.; Yang, X.A. Ecosystem Services Insights into Water Resources Management in China: A Case of Xi’an City. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parsons, T. The Social System; Pyschology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, J.R. Ecological Economics; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.E.; Xu, M.M.; Zhao, Y. Study on river ecological base flow value and its changes during the year based on emergy method. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 33, 160–164. [Google Scholar]
- Lv, C.; Wu, Z. Emergy analysis of regional water ecological–economic system. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 703–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.F.; Zhou, Y.; Xie, W.T.; Dong, W.G. Emergy Analysis on Contribution of Water Resources to Eco-economic System: A Case Study of Xi’an. Value Eng. 2017, 36, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Odorico, P.; Chiarelli, D.D.; Rosa, L.; Bini, A.; Zilberman, D.; Rulli, M.C. The global value of water in agriculture. Dep. Agric. Resour. Econ. UC Berkeley Work. Pap. Ser. 2020, 117, 21985–21993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, W.; Xie, H.; Zhang, N.; Xiang, D. Sustainable water use and water shadow price in China’s urban industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 128, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Items | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area (109 m2) | 9.98 1 | 9.98 1 | 9.98 1 | 9.98 1 | 9.98 1 | 9.98 1 | 9.98 1 |
Rainfall (m) | 0.701 1 | 0.691 1 | 0.572 1 | 0.764 1 | 0.583 1 | 0.705 1 | 0.733 1 |
Surface water (109 m3) | 1.73 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.42 1 | 2.03 1 | 1.80 1 | 2.36 1 | 2.276 1 |
Groundwater (109 m3) | 1.44 1 | 1.43 1 | 1.43 1 | 1.27 1 | 1.12 1 | 1.17 1 | 1.16 1 |
Industrial water supply (108 m3) | 4.17 1 | 4.21 1 | 4.24 1 | 4.35 1 | 4.41 1 | 4.45 1 | 2.07 1 |
Agricultural water supply (108 m3) | 6.39 1 | 6.59 1 | 6.64 1 | 6.66 1 | 6.49 1 | 5.52 1 | 5.80 1 |
Tertiary-industry water supply (108 m3) | 0.87 1 | 0.90 1 | 0.92 1 | 0.97 1 | 1.27 1 | 1.51 1 | 2.33 1 |
Domestic water supply (108 m3) | 4.12 1 | 4.25 1 | 4.09 1 | 4.19 1 | 4.32 1 | 4.35 1 | 4.59 1 |
Ecological water supply (108 m3) | 1.64 1 | 1.88 1 | 1.98 1 | 2.23 1 | 2.72 1 | 2.64 1 | 3.17 1 |
Items | 1 | Unit | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Raw coal and other fuels | 1.70 × 107 | t | 2.09 × 1010 | 3.56 × 1017 |
Edible oil | 3.70 × 1010 | t | 2.03 × 105 | 7.63 × 1015 |
Generating capacity | 1.55 × 1010 | kw·h | 3.60 × 106 | 5.58 × 1016 |
Crude-oil-processing capacity | 2.34 × 107 | t | 4.18 × 1010 | 9.79 × 1017 |
Gasoline and other fuel oils | 2.32 × 107 | t | 4.18 × 1010 | 9.70 × 1017 |
Years | (1016 J) | (1020 sej) | (1010 m3) | (107 m3) | (109 sej/m3) | (1013 sej/m3) | (1011 sej/m3) | (1013 sej/m3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2014 | 3.46 | 5.34 | 5.75 | 1.44 | 9.29 | 3.70 | 7.06 | 3.72 |
2015 | 3.41 | 5.27 | 5.68 | 1.43 | 9.27 | 3.69 | 7.06 | 3.72 |
2016 | 2.82 | 4.35 | 4.70 | 1.43 | 9.28 | 3.05 | 7.06 | 3.08 |
2017 | 3.77 | 5.82 | 6.74 | 1.27 | 8.64 | 4.58 | 7.05 | 4.60 |
2018 | 2.88 | 4.44 | 5.97 | 1.12 | 7.44 | 3.97 | 7.04 | 3.99 |
2019 | 3.48 | 5.37 | 7.82 | 1.17 | 6.87 | 4.58 | 7.03 | 4.61 |
2020 | 3.61 | 5.58 | 5.18 | 1.08 | 10.78 | 5.19 | 6.86 | 5.21 |
Items | Substances | Raw Data | Unit | Transformity (sej/Unit) | Emergy (sej) | Transformity References | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Input | Renewable resources | Solar | 6.07 × 1019 1 | J | 1 | 6.07 × 1019 | Odum [34] |
Wind | 8.43 × 1016 1 | J | 623 | 5.25 × 1019 | Odum [34] | ||
Industrial water (Surface) | 2.50 × 108 2 | m3 | 6.82 × 1011 | 1.70 × 1020 | This study | ||
Industrial water (Underground) | 1.95 × 108 2 | m3 | 4.61 × 1013 | 9.01 × 1021 | This study | ||
Nonrenewable resources 3 | Raw coal and other fuels | 3.56 × 1017 3 | J | 4.00 × 104 | 1.42 × 1022 | Odum [34] | |
Raw materials | 1.39 × 1010 3 | $ | 3.02 × 1012 | 4.19 × 1022 | Li [53] | ||
Labor | 1.75 × 1010 3 | $ | 3.02 × 1012 | 5.29 × 1022 | Li [53] | ||
Fixed assets | 2.20 × 1010 3 | $ | 3.02 × 1012 | 6.65 × 1022 | Li [53] | ||
Total input | 1.849 × 1023 | ||||||
Output | Industrial products 3 | Edible oil | 7.63 × 1015 3 | J | 8.60 × 104 | 6.56 × 1020 | Lan [33] |
Generating capacity | 5.58 × 1016 3 | J | 1.60 × 105 | 8.93 × 1021 | Odum [34] | ||
Chemical pesticide | 1.30 × 103 3 | t | 1.62 × 1015 | 2.11 × 1018 | Odum [34] | ||
Plastic | 2.76 × 105 3 | t | 3.80 × 1014 | 1.05 × 1020 | Odum [34] | ||
Steels | 3.15 × 105 3 | t | 1.78 × 1015 | 5.61 × 1020 | Lv [54] | ||
Glass | 2.15 × 104 3 | t | 8.40 × 1014 | 1.81 × 1019 | Lv [54] | ||
Aluminum | 2.11 × 104 3 | t | 1.60 × 1016 | 3.38 × 1020 | Lv [54] | ||
Cement | 2.76 × 106 3 | t | 1.98 × 1015 | 5.46 × 1021 | Lv [54] | ||
Wheatmeal | 4.40 × 105 3 | t | 8.30 × 104 | 3.65 × 1010 | Odum [34] | ||
Dairy products | 7.26 × 105 3 | t | 1.71 × 106 | 1.24 × 1012 | Lan [33] | ||
Tap-water production | 6.52 × 108 3 | m3 | 3.89 × 1013 | 2.54 × 1022 | Lv [54] | ||
Meat | 7.83 × 104 3 | t | 1.70 × 106 | 1.33 × 1011 | Lan [33] | ||
Chemicals and detergents | 7.00 × 105 3 | t | 1.00 × 1015 | 7.00 × 1020 | Lv [54] | ||
Silicon | 1.21 × 104 3 | t | 1.60 × 1016 | 1.93 × 1020 | Lv [54] | ||
Paper Products | 1.25 × 105 3 | t | 3.90 × 1015 | 4.86 × 1020 | Wang [55] | ||
Mechanical products | 8.75 × 104 3 | t | 6.70 × 1015 | 5.86 × 1020 | Lv [54] | ||
Crude-oil-processing capacity | 9.79 × 1017 3 | J | 5.40 × 104 | 5.29 × 1022 | Odum [34] | ||
Gasoline and other fuel oils | 9.70 × 1017 3 | J | 6.60 × 104 | 6.40 × 1022 | Odum [34] | ||
Wood processing and furniture manufacturing | 1.01 × 109 3 | $ | 3.02 × 1012 | 3.05 × 1021 | Li [55] | ||
Transportation equipment | 1.12 × 1010 3 | $ | 3.02 × 1012 | 3.38 × 1022 | Li [55] | ||
Total output | 1.972 × 1023 |
Item | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1020 sej) | 1724.45 | 1675.04 | 1572.9 | 1708.32 | 1836.84 | 1849.15 | 1822.61 |
(1020 sej) | 1935.21 | 1954.67 | 1892.2 | 1974.19 | 1930.67 | 1971.6 | 1946.20 |
(1020 sej) | 78.96 | 78.04 | 64.84 | 94.52 | 78.4 | 91.84 | 57.85 |
WCR1 (%) | 4.58 | 4.66 | 4.12 | 5.53 | 4.26 | 4.96 | 3.17 |
EDR (1012 sej/$) | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 |
(108 m3) | 4.17 | 4.21 | 4.24 | 4.35 | 4.41 | 4.45 | 2.07 |
B1 (109$) | 2.93 | 3.01 | 2.58 | 3.61 | 2.73 | 3.24 | 2.05 |
($/m3) | 7.03 | 7.16 | 6.09 | 8.32 | 6.18 | 7.28 | 9.88 |
Item | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EI2 (1020 sej) | 387.34 | 410.78 | 359.98 | 470.27 | 437.36 | 408.45 | 392.81 |
EO2 (1020 sej) | 99.31 | 98.80 | 102.57 | 113.43 | 109.96 | 112.82 | 117.72 |
(1020 sej) | 208.64 | 214.65 | 179.40 | 268.94 | 227.38 | 222.86 | 265.02 |
WCR2 (%) | 53.87 | 52.26 | 49.84 | 57.19 | 51.99 | 54.56 | 67.47 |
EDR (1012 sej/$) | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 |
(108 m3) | 6.39 | 6.59 | 6.64 | 6.66 | 6.49 | 5.52 | 5.80 |
B2 (109$) | 1.77 | 1.71 | 1.69 | 2.15 | 1.89 | 2.04 | 2.63 |
($/m3) | 2.77 | 2.60 | 2.55 | 3.22 | 2.92 | 3.70 | 4.53 |
Item | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EI3 (1020 sej) | 2298.81 | 1995.00 | 2157.09 | 2556.25 | 2707.13 | 2761.68 | 3116.04 |
EO3 (1020 sej) | 1574.46 | 2198.64 | 1977.32 | 2298.57 | 2619.36 | 2917.16 | 3106.75 |
(1020 sej) | 17.28 | 17.70 | 15.08 | 22.69 | 25.02 | 34.22 | 54.96 |
WCR3 (%) | 0.75 | 0.89 | 0.70 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 1.24 | 1.76 |
EDR (1012 sej/$) | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 |
(108 m3) | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 1.27 | 1.51 | 2.33 |
B3 (109$) | 0.39 | 0.65 | 0.46 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 1.20 | 1.81 |
($/m3) | 4.50 | 7.18 | 4.97 | 6.98 | 6.30 | 7.95 | 7.80 |
Item | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EI4 (1015 sej per person) | 9.23 | 10.27 | 10.65 | 11.42 | 11.60 | 12.56 | 11.72 |
Disposable income of residents (1016 sej per person) | 1.25 | 1.36 | 1.46 | 1.59 | 1.53 | 1.66 | 1.74 |
Engel coefficient (%) | 33.25 | 32.45 | 28.10 | 28.35 | 25.75 | 26.10 | 28.05 |
(1014 sej per person) | 9.03 | 9.05 | 7.08 | 9.47 | 7.82 | 8.78 | 8.45 |
WCR4 (%) | 9.78 | 8.81 | 6.65 | 8.30 | 6.74 | 6.99 | 7.21 |
EDR (1012 sej/$) | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 |
(108 m3) | 4.12 | 4.25 | 4.09 | 4.19 | 4.32 | 4.35 | 4.59 |
B4 (109$) | 1.16 | 1.12 | 0.80 | 1.19 | 0.88 | 1.02 | 1.51 |
($/m3) | 2.81 | 2.63 | 1.95 | 2.84 | 2.04 | 2.35 | 3.29 |
Item | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 (104 person) | 105.02 | 107.68 | 105.13 | 113.17 | 101.25 | 101.37 | 99.97 |
N2 (104 person) | 3.11 | 2.61 | 2.9 | 3.29 | 3.64 | 3.83 | 3.58 |
Tourism income (1010$) | 1.48 | 1.68 | 1.90 | 2.55 | 3.99 | 4.92 | 2.94 |
(%) | 1.30 | 1.30 | 1.30 | 1.30 | 1.30 | 1.30 | 1.30 |
(108 m3) | 1.64 | 1.88 | 1.98 | 2.23 | 2.72 | 2.64 | 3.17 |
(109 m3) | 1.63 | 1.69 | 1.70 | 1.74 | 1.80 | 1.70 | 1.56 |
EDR (1012 sej/$) | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 3.02 |
B5 (108$) | 6.22 | 6.34 | 6.21 | 6.70 | 6.03 | 6.05 | 5.95 |
B6 (108$) | 1.93 | 2.18 | 2.47 | 3.32 | 5.19 | 6.39 | 3.82 |
B7 (104$) | 12.12 | 9.43 | 9.43 | 14.14 | 10.78 | 16.84 | 33.00 |
($/m3) | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.38 |
($/m3) | 1.18 | 1.16 | 1.24 | 1.49 | 1.90 | 2.42 | 1.21 |
($/m3) | 0.000074 | 0.000056 | 0.000056 | 0.000081 | 0.000060 | 0.000099 | 0.00021 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, Z.; Wang, N.; Mao, X.; Ke, X.; Luo, S.; Yu, L. Benefit Analysis of Economic and Social Water Supply in Xi’an Based on the Emergy Method. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095001
Guo Z, Wang N, Mao X, Ke X, Luo S, Yu L. Benefit Analysis of Economic and Social Water Supply in Xi’an Based on the Emergy Method. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095001
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Zihan, Ni Wang, Xiaolian Mao, Xinyue Ke, Shaojiang Luo, and Long Yu. 2022. "Benefit Analysis of Economic and Social Water Supply in Xi’an Based on the Emergy Method" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095001