Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Lifespan Re-Extension Management of Energy Facilities: Economic Assessment and Decision-Making Model for Phased Decommissioning
Previous Article in Journal
The Backbone of Participatory Science: Reframing Citizen Observatories as Research Infrastructures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 10
10.3390/su17104609
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Defining the Range of Water Withdrawals That Are Forbidden and Regulated for Geothermal Energy Development and Use Projects: A Case Study of Lindian County, Northeast China

by
Ye Tian
1,2,
Lizhi Meng
3,
Zijie Sang
2,
Yuxiu Chen
2,
Feiyang Yan
2 and
Ge Zhang
1,2,*
1
Engineering Research Center of Agricultural Microbiology Technology, Ministry of Education, Heilongjiang University, Harbin 150500, China
2
School of Hydraulic and Electric Power, Heilongjiang University, Harbin 150080, China
3
Heilongjiang General Institute of Ecological Survey and Research, Harbin 150030, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(10), 4609; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104609
Submission received: 28 March 2025 / Revised: 15 May 2025 / Accepted: 15 May 2025 / Published: 17 May 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The current study reveals a deficiency in knowledge regarding the assessment of the breadth of prohibitions and restrictions on water withdrawal for the development and utilization of geothermal resource projects involving water withdrawal. To resolve this matter, this report outlines the extent of water withdrawal prohibitions and restrictions for geothermal energy development and use projects, with a particular focus on Lindian County’s medium- and low-temperature geothermal resources of the sedimentary basin type. A comprehensive consideration of geological, hydrological, and other factors was made in light of the need for global energy transformation and the benefits and drawbacks of geothermal energy. The study first divided Lindian County into 17 zones using the zoning method of dominant sign and superposition method, which was then combined with the hierarchical analysis method. The evaluation indexes were then quantitatively graded and evaluated in the 17 zones using the linear weighted sum method, and each zone’s suitability for water abstraction was ultimately determined. The limited and banned water withdrawal range of the Lindian County geothermal energy development and utilization project is defined based on the water withdrawal characteristics of the 17 subareas. The rational development of geothermal energy, the preservation of the natural environment, and the advancement of the geothermal industry in Lindian County are all greatly impacted by this study, which offers a more sophisticated methodology for the assessment of water withdrawal type projects of sedimentary basin-type medium- and low-temperature geothermal resources.

1. Introduction

A unique analytical framework is presented to identify suitable sites for subsurface hot water extraction in geothermal energy development and use projects.
Ecology, resources, and the environment: underground hot water extraction limitations and prohibitions in geothermal energy development and use.
Classify China’s geothermal resources and construct an evaluation methodology system for Lindian County (medium–low-temperature depositional basin resources) to determine forbidden and limited water extraction zones for similar resources.
As the world economy grows, so does the energy demand. To combat global warming and eliminate reliance on conventional fossil fuels, developing renewable energy sources and constructing a clean, low-carbon energy system has become a popular option for changing the energy strategy of all nations [1,2,3]. Coal, which produces a lot of carbon emissions and frequently contributes to smog and other air quality issues during winter heating in chilly northern regions, has long dominated China’s energy mix. Finding a clean and affordable alternative energy source is, therefore, especially important. As a renewable energy source, geothermal energy can be used for both power generation and non-power generation, such as tourism, heating and cooling, and agricultural farming. It is not impacted by natural factors like seasons, climate, day, or night and can provide consistent power with good stability [4,5,6,7,8]. China’s geothermal resources are relatively rich, with the total reserves accounting for about 8% of the global geothermal resource reserves, of which the exploitable geothermal energy can be converted into about 400 billion tons of standard coal [9]. It is particularly crucial to aggressively and sensibly develop and use geothermal energy because of this exceptional benefit [10,11]. As the main form of geothermal energy utilization globally, the mode of development of water extraction geothermal projects has a direct impact on the sustainability of the energy transition. Unreasonable water extraction projects have the potential to lower groundwater levels, pollute groundwater, and lower geothermal reservoir temperatures [12,13,14]. This study initiates with an examination of geothermal resource types and formulates a methodological framework for delineating the parameters of prohibited and restricted water withdrawals for projects involving water extraction, aiming to mitigate the impact of such withdrawals on geothermal resources and the adjacent environment while promoting the sustainable advancement of the geothermal industry.
Delineating the scope of limited and banned water withdrawals according to the features of various geothermal resource types will be easier with a thorough understanding of the types of geothermal resources in the study area. Depending on the geothermal temperature, geothermal resources are classified as low-temperature (less than 25 °C), medium-temperature (between 90 and 150 °C), and high-temperature (beyond 150 °C) [15,16]. Shallow geothermal energy resources, hydrothermal geothermal resources, and hot dry rock resources are the three categories into which geothermal resources can be separated based on variables including temperature range, geologic features, thermal fluid transmission mode, and development and usage modes [17]. They are categorized into two classes based on tectonic origin: uplifted mountain type and sedimentary basin type [18]. The predominant application of China’s geothermal resource development is for direct heating, with a negligible fraction allocated to power generation [19,20,21]. The primary cause of this is that China’s high-temperature geothermal resources are mostly found in two areas of southern Tibet: Taiwan and western Sichuan and Yunnan. These areas make up a very tiny percentage of the total and are challenging to develop [22]. Although there is clear zonality and regularity in the distribution of hydrothermal geothermal energy resources in China, the total distribution is not uniform because of tectonic structure, magmatic activity, stratigraphic lithology, hydrogeological conditions, and other factors. The geothermal reservoir medium can be separated into pore type, fissure type, karst type, and composite type based on Wang Guiling’s analysis [23] on the partitioning of geothermal reservoir kinds (Figure 1).
Due to the constraints of surface geomorphology, hydrological circumstances, geothermal reservoir conditions, and other considerations, the suitability of developing and using geothermal energy in different regions of the same type of geothermal resource can vary significantly. Zoning studies must therefore be conducted on the target region. Common zoning techniques include principal component analysis, expert consultation, landscape classification, cluster analysis, stacking, prominent sign, and others. For instance, M. J. Pasqualetti et al. [24] interviewed participants in non-electricity geothermal projects, including project managers, Department of Energy staff, and private planners, to gather information on five topics, including resource characteristics. The findings were used to create a geothermal development model. A plan should be created to rationalize the use of geothermal resource potential to avoid difficult-to-develop areas, identify areas that are easy to adapt to, and guide resource assessment. Community planning is an essential element in this process, as it establishes positions and criteria for future growth [24]. To make significant recommendations for the orderly development and sustainable use of shallow geothermal energy in coastal cities in the plains region, Liang He et al. used Nantong, which is located on the east coast of China, as an example. They conducted a zoned comprehensive evaluation of shallow geothermal energy in Nantong based on four aspects: geological and hydrogeological conditions, hydrochemical conditions, water temperature field, and environmental geological conditions [25]. To determine the distribution area of geothermal reservoirs in the target areas of high-quality, average, and poor exploration and development, Liu, Jiulong, et al. used the geological tectonic characteristics, geothermal reservoir characteristics, and resource potential conditions to assess the area of the grid division. They accomplished this by using GIS’s spatial analysis function to generate a grid map and a single-factor information map, which were then overlaid. They then extracted the information and values from each layer map [26]. To conduct a district heating integration of the entire city area in each cluster through an ecological and economic assessment, Unternährer and Jérémy used the geothermal energy integration in Lausanne, Switzerland, as an example. They integrated geo-referenced data using techniques like spatial clustering while maintaining controllable model size [27]. The aforementioned cases demonstrate that the indicators of the factors influencing partitioning in the study have the biggest influence on the choice of partitioning methods; if the indicators are comparatively single, then one method might be required to carry out reasonable partitioning; if the indicators are complex in level and contain multiple factors, then it might be necessary to use a variety of methods to make the complex indicators simple and clear to carry out partitioning.
Following a reasonable partitioning of the study area, each partition’s suitability must be assessed to intuitively determine the range of water withdrawals that are forbidden and regulated in geothermal energy production and use projects. Hierarchical analysis, fuzzy synthesis, entropy weight, gray correlation, and other techniques are frequently used to assess suitability. Mostafa Mahdy et al. used hierarchical analysis to assess the offshore wind energy potential from five points: wind density, depth, soil properties, distance from the national grid, and distance from the coastline. This approach addressed the issue of the lack of a generalized model and insufficient support for offshore wind energy development [28]. For instance, Saraswat, S. K. et al. developed a set of alternative scenarios for renewable energy sources using Shannon’s entropy integrated fuzzy AHP approach, which effectively evaluates the optimal energy mix scenarios for sustainable development in India [29]; By using an illustrative case of PV technology selection, Hong Fang et al. employed a novel approach based on cloud modeling and grey correlation analysis (CMGRA), which offers sustainable options and assistance for technology selection, to validate the viability and efficacy of CMGRA [30]. To determine the weights of the indicators, Jiaxin Qian et al. [31] proposed a multi-objective decision-making (MODM) method based on fuzzy analytical hierarchy method (Fuzzy-AHP), anti-entropy weighting (AEW), and game theory. They also devised a method for assessing the benefits and drawbacks of linking CCHP systems with solar and wind energy [31]. Clarifying the assessment’s goal and choosing the evaluation components (natural, ecological, and social) are prerequisites for choosing an effective evaluation method, as seen in the case study above.
Despite the comprehensive examination of diverse classification methods and evaluation methodologies for geothermal resources, further discourse is warranted on optimizing the effective and safe extraction of medium–low-temperature geothermal resources within sedimentary basins. This study investigates the restrictions and limitations of water extraction-type geothermal projects in the target study area, which is of the sedimentary basin type and contains medium–low-temperature geothermal resources, to address this problem. (1) The zoning method of dominant sign and the superposition method are used to divide the study area into zones to examine the geological structure of sedimentary basin-type geothermal resources, the water-rich nature of the geothermal reservoir, and other features. (2) To obtain the complete scores of the various partitions in the area, a multi-criteria decision-making analysis employing linear weighted sum, quantitative grading of indicators, and hierarchical analysis is used. (3) The extent of water withdrawal restrictions is defined based on the variations in the degree of suitability for water withdrawal in various zoning districts concerning geological conditions, resource reserves, hydrological characteristics, etc. Here is the particular flow chart (Figure 2). By avoiding areas that might be significantly impacted by geothermal development, the water withdrawal type geothermal projects implemented in the target study area can effectively promote the prudent use of geothermal resources while ensuring the safety of the local ecological environment.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

The research area, Lindian County, is situated in the central northwestern region of Heilongjiang Province, China, and falls under the administration of Daqing Municipality. The area spans from 124°38′ to 124°07′ east longitude and 46°51′ to 47°18′ north latitude, encompassing an area of 1831 km2. The county’s highways are radially arranged, connecting to various townships and towns, with the county town as the focal point (Figure 3). Geothermal resources are abundant in Lindian County; eight geothermal wells have been constructed and used, the county has 8000 homes using geothermal water, and its static reserves are 181 billion cubic meters [32]. Groundwater dynamics, which are primarily defined by highly typical dry and abundant water periods every year, are congruent with the weather in Lindian County, seasonal variations in river levels, and human production activities [33]. The prevailing pattern during dry and water-rich periods indicates that the decline in the initial half of the year shifts to an increase in the latter half. Consequently, this study currently excludes the influence of seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels from the analysis. A typical representative location of medium–low-temperature geothermal resources of the sedimentary basin type is Lindian County, where a pore-type layered geothermal reservoir is the form of geothermal reservoir. Granular sediments, such as sand and gravel, accumulate over time to form sedimentary rock strata with differing porosity, including sandstones and conglomerates. The sedimentary rock strata undergo deformation, including folding and fracturing, due to tectonic movements and other geological processes. This creates a geological and tectonic environment that facilitates the storage and movement of geothermal fluids, resulting in a pore-type layered geothermal reservoir [34].

2.2. Research Methods

Three dominant markers were initially chosen for single-factor zoning in this study using the dominant sign method: regional geology, water-richness of thermal reservoirs, and hydrochemical type of geothermal fluids. The zoning map of the study area, incorporating three factors, was finally generated by superimposing the single-factor zoning maps of the dominant markers through a stacking method, thus clarifying the more intricate spatial information. This categorization system enables the independent isolation of geothermal resource characteristics. Nonetheless, the extent of prohibition and limitation on water extraction cannot be ascertained just by zoning. Consequently, it is essential to conduct suitability assessments for each zone to ascertain the viability of water extraction across various areas. The evaluation indicators are chosen based on the principles of dominance, wide coverage, and measurability, and then combined with the current state of the study area. The hierarchical analysis method is then used to determine the weights when assessing the suitability of sedimentary basin-type medium–low-temperature geothermal resources water extraction projects. It is crucial to remember that there should be a moderate number of evaluation indicators to prevent an excessive increase in subjectivity [35,36]. The indicators are then objectively rated and given points based on the actual circumstances of the study area. Ultimately, the linear weighted sum approach is employed to connect the two and produce the final evaluation outcomes. Figure 4 illustrates the precise steps involved in the research methodology.

2.2.1. Study Area Zoning Method

The dominating natural geographic and social factors in Lindian County were chosen for single-factor zoning using the dominant sign approach for the study area’s preliminary zoning. This decision was made based on the elements’ accessibility and distinctions [37,38,39]. The zoning indices that satisfy the regional geology, thermal reservoir water-richness, and geothermal fluid hydrochemical type requirements of the Lindian County study area were finally identified. The zoning process is as follows: (1) Learn about Lindian County’s geology, surface, and subsurface environments. (2) Analyze and compare the parameters that may affect water withdrawal in the study area based on their differences, dominance, and operability to determine the dominating indications, or zoning indices. (3) A single-factor zoning map is constructed using the data to show each factor’s spatial distribution.
Tiny linear or point-like patches may appear when using the overlay method for overlay analysis since different datasets have varying pixel sizes and resolutions. Eliminating small linear and point-like sections by combining them with nearby larger blocks is a simplified method for resolving this issue [40,41]. The following is the overlay method: (1) Verify that the properties of each single-factor zoning map used in the overlay are consistent. The focus needs to be on the underlying properties of each layer (scale, coordinate system, dimension, pixels, etc.). (2) The study employed the suitable overlay technique, specifically vector overlay, including face-to-face and line-to-face overlays. Create a new layer with the combined information of the three original layers by integrating the spatial and attribute data of the three layers.

2.2.2. Evaluation Method for Suitability of the Study Area

In this study, four evaluation indices are selected based on geological conditions, water resource availability, environmental impacts, and other factors, through expert consultation and literature analysis. These indices, which consider the influence and accessibility of the aforementioned factors in the local area, include geological structural forms, hydrochemical types of geothermal fluids, unit water output, and the degree of assurance for lateral recharge volume during mining [42,43,44]. The four evaluation indices comprehensively account for the internal relationships and external influences arising during project execution, analyzing them from various angles. The weights of the indicators are then established using the hierarchical analysis approach [45] as follows: (1) Build the system of evaluation indicators. The hierarchical structure diagram is created by dividing the decision-making objective, elements to be taken into account (decision-making criteria), and decision-making objects into goal, criterion, and indicator layers based on their interrelationships. (2) Create a judgment matrix, choose a relative scale, and compare pairs with one another. (3) Conduct a test of consistency and hierarchical ordering.
The development and use of geothermal energy must take into account additional geological condition factors, such as a large amount of quantitative data and qualitative descriptions. Since these various data types cannot be directly compared and evaluated, the qualitative evaluation must be quantitatively graded [46,47]. The quantitative score is defined in this study using the average score method. The following are the precise techniques: (1) By combining the effects of the factors on the overall objectives, mathematical statistical analysis divides the evaluation factors into four grades, which correspond to the four categories of areas with high suitability, good suitability, moderate suitability, and poor suitability. (2) The data and relevant standards are analyzed to ascertain the restriction criteria applicable to each grade. Upon fulfillment of the restriction criteria, the study area will be aligned with the appropriate grade. (3) Divide the range of values (0, 100) into four intervals, with a final value of 100 for high suitability, 75 for good suitability, 50 for moderate suitability, and 25 for poor suitability. Each interval has a value of 25.
Finally, the linear weighted sum method [48] is utilized to multiply the weights obtained from the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) at each level with the corresponding quantified grading scores of the indicators and then sum them up to obtain the final evaluation score.
y i = ∑ j = 1 m x i j ω j
In the formula, y i represents the comprehensive evaluation score of the i -th evaluated object; x i j represents the score of the i -th evaluated object on the j -th evaluation index; ω j represents the weight of the j -th evaluation index.
According to the composite score of each subarea, the suitability level of water abstraction in the evaluated subarea was determined based on the principle of maximum affiliation [49]. The appropriateness of water abstraction reflects the degree of difference in water abstraction in different subareas of the study area. It is categorized into four levels: high suitability, good suitability, moderate suitability, and poor suitability (Table 1).

3. Results

3.1. Partition

The study area is in the geothermal fluid runoff section, where geothermal resources are widely distributed. The study area’s northern boundary is the geothermal fluid recharge boundary, its southern boundary is the geothermal fluid discharge boundary, and its eastern and western boundaries are those without a geothermal fluid recharge-and-discharge relationship, based on the natural state of geothermal fluid movement. This study supports the optimization of the following subareas by clearly defining the study area’s scope and recharge conditions based on the features of the aforementioned boundary conditions. This study employs three zoning indicators, chosen based on the prominent characteristics of the study area, to finalize the zoning map. This is accomplished through an analysis of geology, hydrochemical type, geothermal reservoir water richness, and other pertinent data, resulting in three individual single-factor zoning maps and one three-factor coupling map. By integrating the differences, dominance, and operability of the elements, the zoning indices can be expertly selected, and when paired with pertinent data, they can effectively address the zoning research of diverse area types in practical applications.

3.1.1. Regional Geological Single-Factor Zoning

The Lindian area is a class II tectonic unit of the Xiaoxing’anling–Songnen Massif in the Xing’anling–Nemeng Trough Folding Zone, which is the junction of the Central Depression Belt and the northern subduction zone of the Songnen Interruptive (Depression) Belt, according to the geotectonic classification. The Qijia–Gulong Depression and the Heiyubao Depression are subdivisions of the central depression belt, while the Keshan–Yilong Backslope Belt and the Uyur Depression Belt are subdivisions of the northern subduction zone. As a result, when looking at the tectonic distribution of this survey area specifically, it can be seen that the Keshan–Yilong Backslope Belt is located in the north, the Uyur Depression Belt is located in the west, the Qijia–Gulong Depression is located in the south, and the Black Fish Bubble Depression is located in the east (Figure 5). The regional geologic subdivisions table is as follows (Table 2). In contrast to the backslope tectonics, the depression tectonics are more suited for water extraction in this study area’s regional geology.

3.1.2. Single-Factor Regionalization of Hydrochemical Types of Geothermal Fluids

In the Lindian area, geothermal fluids are found in the third and fourth sections of the Quantou Formation of the Cretaceous System, the Qingshankou Formation, and the layers of the Yaojia Formation. The thermal reservoir’s water temperature ranges from 50 to 80 °C. The concentration of main ions and the mineralization of geothermal fluids vary greatly in space due to the influence of stratigraphic lithology and groundwater circulation characteristics. There is a broad distribution of subterranean brackish and salty water, the groundwater cycle alternates slowly, and the geothermal fluid is deeply buried in the study area. HCO3-Cl-Na, Cl-Na, Cl-HCO3-Na, and HCO3-Na type water are the most common hydrochemical types of geothermal fluid in Lindian County. Cl-SO4-Na type water and HCO3-Na type water are also found locally (Figure 6). The hydrochemical type partition table for geothermal fluids is as follows (Table 3). When comparing the hydrochemical types of geothermal fluids in the study area, it is evident that the hydrochemical types and characteristics differ significantly between the Lindian Township survey area and the Garden Township survey area. The HCO3-Na, Cl-HCO3-Na, and HCO3-Cl-Na types of water are better suited for water extraction than the other two types.

3.1.3. Single-Factor Zoning of Geothermal Reservoir Water-Richness

There are two types of geothermal fluid circulation runoff conditions in Lindian County overall: one occurs in the northern portion of the study area with unit water output ≥ 20 m3/(d·m), indicating a strong geothermal water endowment, and the other is located in the southern part of the study area with a unit water output between 10 and 20 m3/(d·m), indicating a medium geothermal water endowment (Figure 7). The geothermal reservoir water-richness zoning table is as follows (Table 4). The northern portion of the study area is better suited for water extraction than the southern portion, according to the existing state of geothermal reservoir water richness in the area.

3.1.4. Three-Factor Coupling Zoning by Superposition Method

Based on the three single-factor zoning maps, the three factors were coupled by the overlay method, and Lindian County was divided into 17 sub-regions (Figure 8). The factor sets of each sub-region are different, so the impact of the prohibition and restriction of water extraction on geothermal energy development and utilization projects in different regions also varies greatly. A comparison of the dominant factor combinations in the study area shows that tectonics with backslope upward projection are less suitable for water withdrawal than tectonics with downward depression [50,51]; different hydrochemical types of geothermal fluids have different uses for water withdrawal, and different types of hydrochemistry have different suitability for water withdrawal [52]; strong geothermal water endowment zones are more suitable for water withdrawal than medium geothermal water endowment zones [53]. To rapidly determine which of the 17 subareas of the study area are the greatest candidates for geothermal energy development and utilization projects and which require further investigation and assessment, a basic analysis is carried out for each of the aforementioned parameters. Ultimately, this analysis found that the WC I and KA I regions offer significant benefits for water extraction.

3.2. Evaluation Results of Suitability

This study’s selection of evaluation indices rigorously follows the concepts of dominance, comprehensive coverage, and measurability. The evaluation indicators are derived from multiple aspects, including geological conditions, water resource availability, environmental impacts, and legal regulations. Ultimately, four indicators are selected: geological structural forms, chemical types of geothermal fluids, unit water output, and the degree of guarantee for the lateral recharge volume during mining.

3.2.1. Calculation of Indicator Weights

The process of determining the weights of the relative significance of all criteria at a certain level in relation to the highest level (the overarching objective) is referred to as hierarchical general ranking. This process is executed in a systematic manner, progressing from the highest level to the lowest level. Table 5 and Table 6 present the criterion layer judgment matrix and the geologic conditions judgment matrix, respectively.
The following table displays the weights of individual indicators in the entire assessment system as well as the weight coefficients for each indicator in each layer, determined by the hierarchical analysis approach (Table 7). The results of the consistency test show that this matrix consistency test was successful. This demonstrates the robustness of the indicator weights in the hierarchical analysis method used in this study. The weights illustrate the relationship between the target, guideline, and indicator layers, as well as the relative importance of each indicator in each layer. They also show the degree of influence that various indicators have on water withdrawal for geothermal energy development and utilization projects in the study area.

3.2.2. Quantitative Grading of Indicators

The Specification for Hydrogeological Engineering Geological Exploration in Mining Areas (GB12719-1991) and the General Technical Requirements for the Utilization of Shallow Geothermal Energy (GB/T 38678-2020) serve as the foundation for the quantitative grading of evaluation indicators in this study (Table 8). To standardize the various indicators and convert the assessment indicators of various systems into comparable data, the judging standards for the various evaluation indicators are grouped and prominently displayed.

3.2.3. Comprehensive Score of Suitability Evaluation

Employing the aforementioned evaluation methodology, contingent upon the establishment of the indicator system, hierarchical structure, and weight values, the weights of the indicators are multiplied by the quantitative grading scores of the respective indicators, and subsequently aggregated to derive the final evaluation scores for each subarea, thereby facilitating the visualization of the suitability results. The scoring results of each division are as follows (Table 9).
The findings indicate that the majority of Lindian County’s sub-districts for the development and use of geothermal energy have more geothermal resource reserves, adequate lateral recharge, and less development difficulty; these sub-districts are classified as having good suitability. However, a small percentage of sub-districts still have geothermal resource reserves that are not very rich, and the type of geothermal fluid hydrochemistry is relatively large for equipment corrosion; these sub-districts are classified as having moderate suitability. Lastly, 14 subzones in Lindian County are of good suitability, while 3 of the 17 subzones are of moderate suitability. Based on the previously reported findings, Lindian County’s geothermal energy development and water withdrawal conditions are generally better. The WC I and KA I sub-districts in the study area are the most appropriate for water withdrawal, and the type of water withdrawal has a better advantage in terms of groundwater resource potential, difficulty, and water withdrawal type. These findings are in line with the findings of the preliminary analysis. However, QE II, QD II, and QA II sub-districts are comparatively less suited for water withdrawal, which could lead to more issues that need to be resolved and waste resources.

3.3. Grading and Zoning of Water Suitability

Comparing the comprehensive score of each partition, it is found that the score of the more suitable partition has a large difference in the extreme value, and the unsuitable water extraction factors have different degrees of influence on the geothermal energy development and utilization projects. To facilitate the observation of the location of each partition for comparative analysis, according to the characteristics of the geothermal resources, each partition has been listed as a more suitable level 3 area: HE II, KB I, WB I, HA I, WA II, HA II, WD II, and HD II sub-districts. QA I, HD I, WA I, and KC I are classified as good suitability level 2 area; KA I and WC I are classified as good suitability level 1 area. The suitability of the more suitable level 1 zone is greater than that of the level 2 and level 3 zones in order (Figure 9).
Eight partitions, including HA I, WB I, KB I, HE II, WA II, HA II, WD II, and HD II, perform poorly within the good suitability. The life and operational efficiency of the geothermal energy equipment, particularly for critical equipment like heat exchangers, will be directly impacted by Cl-SO4-Na and Cl-Na type water in this sort of zoning. The sustainable development of geothermal resources may be hampered by geothermal water that has a high mineralization level because it could contaminate or choke the aquifer after recharging.
The QA I, HD I, WA I, and KC I subareas have better water withdrawal conditions compared to the eight subareas mentioned above. This type of scoring subdivision has fewer constraints on water withdrawals and has greater potential for development. Due to their strong parallels in geothermal resource potential, development challenges brought on by geological structure or resource reserves, and geothermal fluid hydrochemistry type, the WA I and KC I zones have nearly identical total scores. In addition to having comparatively adequate geothermal resource reserves and unit water output to support larger-scale geothermal projects, this sort of zoning can effectively lessen the influence of water quality on geothermal energy equipment.
KA I and WC I sub-districts have comprehensive scores of 70.86 and 72.56, respectively. This kind of sub-district, in the geothermal energy development and utilization of water extraction projects, has less impact on the environment, and the technical feasibility is higher. Although HCO3-Na-type water is more readily available, it is not appropriate for long-term, large-scale geothermal projects since it is mostly replenished by atmospheric precipitation, with geothermal fluid hydrochemistry accounting for a tiny portion. Long-term large-scale geothermal projects, thus when all other parameters are equal, the KA I sub-district has a slightly lower comprehensive score than the WC I sub-district, but it still has an edge over the QA I, HD I, WA I, and KC I four sub-districts.
In summary, the high-scoring categories possess distinct strengths and exhibit few faults. The water output in the KA I and WC I sub-districts is robust and exhibits minimal corrosiveness to equipment, resulting in low development difficulty. The regions that received poor scores were modest overall, particularly those with significant deficiencies that hindered water access. The water output performance of the QD II sub-district unit is subpar; intricate geological formations significantly exacerbate development challenges. Additionally, the hydrochemical characteristics of the geothermal fluid contribute to corrosion and clogging of water extraction equipment, thereby severely diminishing the region’s economic viability. These constraints render the area unsuitable for water extraction.

3.4. The Delineation of Areas Where Water Extraction Is Prohibited or Restricted

Although geothermal resources are renewable resources, no matter what type of zoning can not be extracted without control. Consequently, in this study, the zones that are prone to environmental damage or have more restrictive conditions for water extraction are restricted (Figure 10). The water richness of geothermal reservoir, geothermal resource storage, lateral recharge, hydrochemistry types of geothermal fluids, mining difficulties, etc. are the basis for the restriction conditions. Subareas with scores below 55 are shown to have clear disadvantages when it comes to the development and use of geothermal energy in water extraction projects. The primary cause of this is that the subareas’ water output differs somewhat from those with scores of 55 or higher. To measure the water extraction projects in a planned way, these regions should be more cautious and rigorous. As a result, the final selection of subareas with a comprehensive score of 55 points or fewer is limited.
In this study, limiting water withdrawal does not mean that water cannot be withdrawn, and unrestricted areas do not mean that water can be withdrawn without control. As a renewable energy source, geothermal energy is naturally restored by its geothermal reservoir system, and every geothermal system is different. Under the premise of ensuring that the geothermal resources and the surrounding ecology are not damaged, a detailed monthly and yearly extraction program is formulated by the project requirements, and the pressure of the geothermal reservoir is maintained through safe and effective recharge methods to ensure sustainable geothermal energy development and utilization. The process of extraction and recharge is dynamic and well balanced, and recharge is a means rather than an end in itself. Therefore, a management and exploitation model that fits the unique characteristics of each geothermal field must be established. It comprises recharge, stimulated recharge, and natural recharge in terms of fluid extraction volume. For those geothermal fields with obvious fluid recharge, for example, the present study area belongs to sedimentary basin-type geothermal resources, due to their large storage space and thickness, as well as diversified geothermal reservoir types, these geothermal fields are equipped with good natural recharge conditions, which are favorable to the recharge and renewal of geothermal water. In this instance, maintaining the sustainable use of geothermal resources only requires partial recharge.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Results

This paper takes sedimentary basin-type medium- and low-temperature geothermal resources as the background. It focuses on the water withdrawal type geothermal energy development and utilization projects in the typical region of Lindian County, aiming to delineate the scope of its prohibited and restricted water withdrawal. In this study, through this method system of first zoning and then evaluating, Lindian County was finally divided into nine suitable areas for water withdrawal, eight restricted areas, and no prohibited areas (Table 10).
Diverse developmental strategies should be implemented for various regional divisions. Water extraction in suitable areas must adhere rigorously to the stipulations for the development and utilization of geothermal energy, while simultaneously implementing sustainable development measures such as recharge, to safeguard the integrity of geothermal resources. In restricted areas, water extraction should be stringently regulated, accompanied by explicit extraction planning. In prohibited areas, characterized by extreme ecological fragility, water extraction must be unequivocally forbidden. All areas must be monitored and managed in real-time to ensure the sustainable usage of geothermal resources.

4.2. Extension and Outlook

This study, rooted in the context of Lindian County, allows for the adaptation of the indicator system to categorize various regions into prohibited and restricted water withdrawal zones when faced with similar or diverse geothermal resources. In a similar geothermal resource area, when choosing the zoning indicators and adaptive evaluation indexes, the system developed in this paper should be referred to, and consideration should be given to the chosen indicators and the regional characteristics of the close fit. This is because, within the same type of geothermal resource area, Lindian County and other areas may differ in the thickness, porosity, permeability, and integrity of the cover layer of the sedimentary strata, which will result in differences in the storage and transportation characteristics of geothermal fluids. Therefore, using the approach developed in this work as a guide, consideration should be given to the fact that the zoning and adaptation evaluation indices chosen are close to the regional features.
Targeting different kinds of geothermal resources, like high-temperature geothermal resources, is characterized by high project investment and risk, significant environmental impacts, extremely strict technical requirements for water extraction projects, and great difficulty in resource exploration [54]. The features of high-temperature geothermal resources, the technical challenges of well drilling, and the hydrochemistry types of geothermal fluids should all be taken into account when choosing indicators [55,56].
The primary challenge in assessing various geothermal resources is the acquisition of evaluation indicators, including geophysical exploration, geochemical exploration, surface environmental impacts, subsurface environmental impacts, and other complex areas that hinder the attainment of comprehensive and precise data. Future endeavors should focus on enhancing the technical innovation of exploration precision and efficiency, integrating artificial intelligence and big data, and employing deep learning algorithms to analyze extensive exploration data, forecast the distribution of thermal reserves, and optimize development strategies.

5. Conclusions

This article examines the definition of the prohibited and restricted withdrawal zones for geothermal energy development and utilization projects in Lindian County, which features sedimentary basin-type medium and low-temperature geothermal resources. The precise conclusions are as follows:
(1)
Using the dominant sign method combined with the superposition method for the zoning of the study area, through the dominant sign method comprehensive analysis to determine the regional geological, hydrochemistry types of geothermal fluid, and geothermal reservoir water-richness nature of the zoning indicators, firstly, according to the zoning indicators of the single-factor zoning, and then through spatial superposition of the formation of the three-factor coupling zoning results. Lindian County is divided into 17 sub-regions, each with a different set of factors, so the impacts of prohibiting and restricting water withdrawals for geothermal energy development and utilization projects are also quite different.
(2)
Based on the principles of dominance, wide coverage, and measurability, the geological formations, hydrochemical types of geothermal fluids, water output per unit, and the degree of guarantee for the lateral recharge volume during mining were selected as the suitability evaluation indexes. Hierarchical analysis was used to find the weights of evaluation indexes, and the evaluation indexes were quantified and graded. Finally, the final scores of each sub-district were obtained through linear weighting and summing. The results show that the water extraction conditions for the development and utilization of geothermal energy in Lindian County are generally better, with 3 out of 17 subzones having moderate suitability and 14 subzones having good suitability, among which WC I and KA I subzones are the most suitable for water extraction, and they have better advantages in terms of the potential of groundwater resources, the difficulty of extraction, and the type of water extraction, while the relative suitability for water extraction in QE II, QD II, and QA II subzones is weaker.
(3)
The 14 appropriate subareas are separated into 2 better appropriate level 1 zones, 4 better appropriate level 2 zones, and 8 better appropriate level 3 zones based on the water-richness of the geothermal reservoir, geothermal resource storage, lateral recharge, hydrochemistry types of geothermal fluid, and mining difficulties of each subarea. Meanwhile, through comparative analysis, the eight districts with a comprehensive score of 55 points or less were designated as restricted water extraction areas. These areas must strictly regulate the amount of water extracted and implement sustainable development and geothermal energy utilization reasonably and effectively. In addition to optimizing the architecture of geothermal resource development, such delineation can effectively govern the ecological environment and geothermal resources. It is also crucial for the high-quality development and usage of geothermal energy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Z. and Y.T.; data curation, L.M. and Y.T.; formal analysis, L.M. and Y.T.; funding acquisition, G.Z.; resources, G.Z. and Y.T.; investigation, L.M.; methodology, Y.T.; software, F.Y. and Y.T.; validation, Y.T., Z.S., and Y.C.; writing—original draft, Y.T.; writing—review and editing, G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

A theme project of the Ministry of Water Resources Management Center, Ministry of Water Resources.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available as the data are private and contain sensitive information. However, they are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the College of Water Resources and Electricity of Heilongjiang University and the Water Resources Management Center of the Ministry of Water Resources.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cui, R.G.; Guo, J.; Cheng, L.H.; Zhang, Y.X.; Liu, W. Status and trends analysis of global clean energies. Acta Geosci. Sin. 2021, 42, 179–186. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gustafsson, R.; Dutta, A.; Bouri, E. Are energy metals hedges or safe havens for clean energy stock returns? Energy 2022, 244, 122708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dincer, I.; Acar, C. A review on clean energy solutions for better sustainability. Int. J. Energy Res. 2015, 39, 585–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ding, Y.T. Make Geothermal Energy “Hot”. People’s Daily, 18 October 2023, 018. Available online: https://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2023-10/18/nw.D110000renmrb_20231018_4-18.htm (accessed on 14 May 2025). (In Chinese).
  5. Ma, W.; Gong, Y.; Zhao, D.; Xu, Q.; Qin, H.; Chen, Y. Geothermal Energy Exploitation, Utilization, and Its Development Trend in China. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2016, 31, 199–207. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  6. Kumar, L.; Hossain, M.S.; Assad, M.E.H.; Manoo, M.U. Technological Advancements and Challenges of Geothermal Energy Systems: A Comprehensive Review. Energies 2022, 15, 9058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sang, Z.; Zhang, G.; Wang, H.; Zhang, W.; Chen, Y.; Han, M.; Yang, K. Effective Solutions to Ecological and Water Environment Problems in the Sanjiang Plain: Utilization of Farmland Drainage Resources. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ren, Y.; Lu, X.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, J.; Liu, J.; Ma, F.; Cui, Z.; Yu, H.; Zhu, T.; Zhang, Y. Preliminary Study on Optimization of a Geothermal Heating System Coupled with Energy Storage for Office Building Heating in North China. Energies 2022, 15, 8947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cui, Y.J. The Current Situation and Development Suggestions of Geothermal Resources Development and Utilization in China. Sci. Technol. Econ. Inn. Mong. 2022, 22, 90–91. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  10. Ma, L. New technologies and new business models in geothermal energy keep emerging continuously. China Petrochemical News, 30 December 2024. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shortall, R.; Davidsdottir, B.; Axelsson, G. Geothermal energy for sustainable development: A review of sustainability impacts and assessment frameworks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sharmin, T.; Khan, N.R.; Akram, M.S.; Ehsan, M.M. A state-of-the-art review on geothermal energy extraction, utilization, and improvement strategies: Conventional, hybridized, and enhanced geothermal systems. Int. J. Thermofluids 2023, 18, 100323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Stober, I.; Bucher, K. Uses of Geothermal Energy. In Geothermal Energy: From Theoretical Models to Exploration and Development; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 43–79. [Google Scholar]
  14. Xu, Z.; Zhao, H.; Fan, L.; Jia, Q.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, X.; Han, D.; Tan, Y.; Liu, J. A literature review of using supercritical CO2 for geothermal energy extraction: Potential, methods, challenges, and perspectives. Renew. Energy Focus 2024, 51, 100637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, G.L.; Wang, W.L.; Zhang, W.; Ma, F.; Liu, F. The status quo and prospect of geothermal resources exploration and development in Bei**g-Tianj in-Hebei region in China. China Geol. 2020, 3, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhengmeng, H.O.; Xuning, W.U.; Jiashun, L.U.; Liehui, Z.H.; Zaoyuan, L.I.; Cheng, C.A.; Lin, W.U.; Qianjun, C.H. Major challenges of deep geothermal systems and an innovative development mode of REGS integrated with energy storage. Coal Geol. Explor. 2024, 52, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wang, G.L.; Zhang, W.; Ma, F.; Lin, W.J.; Liang, J.Y.; Zhu, X. Overview on hydrothermal and hot dry rock researches in China. China Geol. 2018, 1, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, W.; Kong, X.J.; Yuan, L.J.; Gao, J.; Shen, T.F.; Feng, H.; Hao, W.; He, Y. Overview of Geothermal Resources in China and Suggestions for Their Development and Utilization. China’s Min. Ind. 2020, 29 (Suppl. 1), 22–26. [Google Scholar]
  19. Guo, X.; Dang, L.; Han, Z.; Guo, D. High-quality development of China’s geothermal industry—China National Report of the 2023 world geothermal conference. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2023, Beijing, China, 15–17 September 2023; pp. 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhang, J.C.; Chen, L.; Sun, Y.H.; Xu, L.F.; Zhao, X.X.; Li, Q.C.; Zhang, D. Geothermal resource distribution and prospects for development and utilization in China. Nat. Gas Ind. B 2024, 11, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xia, Z.H.; Jia, G.S.; Ma, Z.D.; Wang, J.W.; Zhang, Y.P.; Jin, L.W. Analysis of economy, thermal efficiency and environmental impact of geothermal heating system based on life cycle assessments. Appl. Energy 2021, 303, 117671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jia, Y.Y.; Chang, Q.; Wang, Y.W.; Yao, P.Y.; Yu, K.F. The current situation of geothermal energy development and utilization in China and its development trend under the background of carbon neutrality. Green Pet. Petrochem. 2021, 6, 5–9. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  23. Wang, G.L.; Zhang, W.; Liang, J.Y.; Lin, W.J.; Liu, Z.M.; Wang, W.L. Evaluation of Geothermal Resources Potential in China. Acta Geol. Sin. 2017, 38, 449–450. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  24. Pasqualetti, M.J. The site specific nature of geothermal energy: The primary role of land use planning in nonelectric development. Nat. Resour. J. 1983, 23, 795–814. [Google Scholar]
  25. He, L.; Yang, L.; Lei, S.; Xu, C.; Chen, L. Comprehensive Evaluation of Adaptability Zoning for Shallow Geothermal Energy Development and Utilization: Case of Nantong City, East Coast of China. Int. J. Energy Res. 2024, 2024, 6648349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, J.L.; Han, S.B.; Xiang, H.; Yue, D.D.; Yang, F.T. The resource potential and zoning evaluation for deep geothermal resources of the Dongying formation in TianJin Binhai new area. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Unternährer, J.; Moret, S.; Joost, S.; Maréchal, F. Spatial clustering for district heating integration in urban energy systems: Application to geothermal energy. Appl. Energy 2017, 190, 749–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mahdy, M.; Bahaj, A.S. Multi-criteria decision analysis for offshore wind energy potential in Egypt. Renew. Energy 2018, 118, 278–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saraswat, S.K.; Digalwar, A.K. Evaluation of energy alternatives for sustainable development of energy sector in India: An integrated Shannon’s entropy fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Renew. Energy 2021, 171, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fang, H.; Wang, X.; Song, W. Technology selection for photovoltaic cell from sustainability perspective: An integrated approach. Renew. Energy 2020, 153, 1029–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Qian, J.; Wu, J.; Yao, L.; Mahmut, S.; Zhang, Q. Comprehensive performance evaluation of Wind-Solar-CCHP system based on emergy analysis and multi-objective decision method. Energy 2021, 230, 120779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xu, F.G.; Li, L.X. Prospects for Exploration and Development of Geothermal Resources in Lin Deng County. In A Collection of Papers on the Strategic Research on the Development of Geothermal Resources in Western China; 2001; pp. 77–82. Available online: https://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-IGNH200107001011.htm (accessed on 14 May 2025). (In Chinese)
  33. Xu, S.Q.; Liang, X.H.; Song, L. Study and Analysis on Groundwater Dynamics in Lin Deng County. Heilongjiang Water Conserv. Sci. Technol. 2010, 185–186. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jia, C.; Dong, X.; Ding, P.P.; Feng, K.Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, M.Z. Experimental Study on Thermal Consolidation Deformation Characteristics of Pore-type Geothermal Reservoirs. Geotech. Mech. 2023, 44 (Suppl. 1), 91–98. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  35. Ahadi, P.; Fakhrabadi, F.; Pourshaghaghy, A.; Kowsary, F. Optimal site selection for a solar power plant in Iran via the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Renew. Energy 2023, 215, 118944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shahnazari, A.; Pourdej, H.; Kharage, M.D. Ranking of organic fertilizer production from solid municipal waste systems using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and VIKOR models. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2021, 32, 101946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alam, E.; Ray-Bennett, N.S. Disaster risk governance for district-level landslide risk management in Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 59, 102220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yanbo, Q.; Shilei, W.; Yaya, T.; Guanghui, J.; Tao, Z.; Liang, M. Territorial spatial planning for regional high-quality development–An analytical framework for the identification, mediation and transmission of potential land utilization conflicts in the Yellow River Delta. Land Use Policy 2023, 125, 106462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.S.; Zhang, L.B.; Su, D.; Cao, S.Y.; Leng, Y.F.; Xiao, Y. China’s county-scale ecological regionalization. J. Nat. Resour. 2012, 27, 154–162. [Google Scholar]
  40. Huang, J.J.; Gan, Y.Q.; Miao, S.X.; Wu, J.Q.; Yang, L.; Hua, M.; Min, W.; Zhao, L.; Fang, Q. A preliminary study of the evaluation index system for geo-environment regionalization in Jiangsu. Geol. China 2011, 38, 1599–1606. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang, N.; Cheng, W.; Wang, B.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, C. Geomorphological regionalization theory system and division methodology of China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 30, 212–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, Y.; Zhang, D. Evaluation and driving factors of city sustainability in Northeast China: An analysis based on interaction among multiple indicators. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 67, 102721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, J.; Gallego-Schmid, A.; Stamford, L. Integrated sustainability assessment of repurposing onshore abandoned wells for geothermal power generation. Appl. Energy 2024, 359, 122670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ramos-Escudero, A.; García-Cascales, M.S.; Cuevas, J.M.; Sanner, B.; Urchueguía, J.F. Spatial analysis of indicators affecting the exploitation of shallow geothermal energy at European scale. Renew. Energy 2021, 167, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saaty, T.L. Decision-making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, P.; Wang, B.; Chen, P.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, S. Vulnerability assessment of the eco-geo-environment of mining cities in arid and semi-arid areas: A case study from Zhungeer, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 152, 110364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dong, J.; He, P.; Liu, H.; Guan, Y.; Liu, H.; Xia, W.Q.; Dong, J. AHP-Based Evaluation of the Suitability of Shallow Geothermal Energy Utilization in GSHP System. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 859454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tang, F.; Wang, L.; Guo, Y.; Fu, M.; Huang, N.; Duan, W.; Luo, M.; Zhang, J.; Li, W.; Song, W. Spatio-temporal variation and coupling coordination relationship between urbanisation and habitat quality in the Grand Canal, China. Land Use Policy 2022, 117, 106119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cai, W.; Zhai, B.; Liu, Y.; Liu, R.; Ning, X. Quadratic polynomial guided fuzzy C-means and dual attention mechanism for medical image segmentation. Displays 2021, 70, 102106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Glukhova, S.A.; Sukhanova, T.V.; Pinigin, O.V.; Kharitonova, N.A. Hydrogeological Conditions of the Meshchera Depression and Their Connection with the Latest Tectonic Structure of the Region. Mosc. Univ. Geol. Bull. 2024, 79, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Behzad, H.M.; Ford, D.; Nie, Y.; Peng, T.; Keshavarzi, M.; Zhang, J.; Wang, F.; Chen, H.; Vardanjani, H.K. Illuminating the complexity of hydrogeological regimes in fault-influenced, anticlinal karst aquifers: Insights into the recharge patterns in tectonically complex karst catchments. J. Hydrol. 2023, 626, 130247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Erbaş, H.A.; Bozdağ, A. Hydrogeochemical characteristics and evaluation of the geothermal fluids in the Gazlıgöl geothermal field (Afyonkarahisar), Western Anatolia, Turkey. Geothermics 2022, 105, 102543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, X.; Yuan, X.; Shui, Q.; Qi, Y.; Deng, X.; Yang, F. Optimized allocation of water temperature, quality, and quantity for the utilization of geothermal water from deep buried reservoirs. Geothermics 2024, 119, 102951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Song, X.; Li, G.; Huang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Wang, G.; Song, G.; Xu, F. Review of high-temperature geothermal drilling and exploitation technologies. Gondwana Res. 2023, 122, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, C.; Huang, R.; Qin, S.; Hu, S.; Zhang, S.; Li, S.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Z. The high-temperature geothermal resources in the Gonghe-Guide area, northeast Tibetan plateau: A comprehensive review. Geothermics 2021, 97, 102264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, G.; Zhu, J.; Yang, K.; Zhu, Y.; Sang, Z. Design of an Enhanced SAT Using Zeolite for the Removal of Ammonia Nitrogen at a Bengbu Aquatic Farm in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 04609 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of geothermal resources in China.
Figure 1. Distribution of geothermal resources in China.
Sustainability 17 04609 g001
Sustainability 17 04609 g002
Figure 2. Study map for delimiting the scope of prohibited and restricted water intake for geothermal energy development and utilization.
Figure 2. Study map for delimiting the scope of prohibited and restricted water intake for geothermal energy development and utilization.
Sustainability 17 04609 g002
Sustainability 17 04609 g003
Figure 3. Traffic location map of Lindian County.
Figure 3. Traffic location map of Lindian County.
Sustainability 17 04609 g003
Sustainability 17 04609 g004
Figure 4. Flowchart of research methods.
Figure 4. Flowchart of research methods.
Sustainability 17 04609 g004
Sustainability 17 04609 g005
Figure 5. Regional geology of the study area.
Figure 5. Regional geology of the study area.
Sustainability 17 04609 g005
Sustainability 17 04609 g006
Figure 6. Hydrochemical types of geothermal fluids in the study area.
Figure 6. Hydrochemical types of geothermal fluids in the study area.
Sustainability 17 04609 g006
Sustainability 17 04609 g007
Figure 7. Geothermal reservoir water-richness in the study area.
Figure 7. Geothermal reservoir water-richness in the study area.
Sustainability 17 04609 g007
Sustainability 17 04609 g008
Figure 8. Three-factor coupling diagram of the study area in Lindian County.
Figure 8. Three-factor coupling diagram of the study area in Lindian County.
Sustainability 17 04609 g008
Sustainability 17 04609 g009
Figure 9. Suitability division.
Figure 9. Suitability division.
Sustainability 17 04609 g009
Sustainability 17 04609 g010
Figure 10. Restricted water extraction zones.
Figure 10. Restricted water extraction zones.
Sustainability 17 04609 g010
Table 1. Quantitative Grading Result Suitability Comparison Table.
Table 1. Quantitative Grading Result Suitability Comparison Table.
SuitabilityScore RangeGeneral Situation of the Interval
High suitability100 ≥ Y ≥ 75There is a full-year water withdrawal plan to ensure the sustainable development of groundwater resources; geothermal resources are plentiful, reserves are adequate, environmental conditions satisfy development needs, and the lateral recharge of exploitation is significantly larger than the exploitable reserves.
Good suitability75 > Y ≥ 50To sustainably protect groundwater resources, a full year of water withdrawal planning is required, along with the mining of lateral recharge and recoverable reserves, rich geothermal resources, adequate reserves, and environmental circumstances that essentially fulfill development needs.
Moderate suitability50 > Y ≥ 25Although the region’s geothermal resources are comparatively abundant and have enough reserves, development is challenging, lateral recharge extraction is less than recoverable reserves, and appropriate recharge is needed. To guarantee sustainable groundwater resources, a complete year of water withdrawal planning is done concurrently.
Poor suitability25 > Y ≥ 0Geothermal resources are hard to develop and yield poor results; they are also relatively limited and do not meet the requirements for the development of geothermal energy and water usage.
Table 2. Regional geology of the study area.
Table 2. Regional geology of the study area.
NumberZone Name
WWuyuer Depression
KKeshan–Yilong Anticline
QQijia–Gulong Depression
HBlack Fish Bubble Depression
Table 3. Hydrochemical types of geothermal fluids in the study area.
Table 3. Hydrochemical types of geothermal fluids in the study area.
NumberZone Name
AHCO3·Cl-Na type
BCl·SO4-Na type
CHCO3-Na type
DCl·HCO3-Na type
ECl-Na type
Table 4. Geothermal reservoir water-richness in the study area.
Table 4. Geothermal reservoir water-richness in the study area.
NumberZone Name
ⅠRich water-bearing zone of the geothermal reservoir
ⅡModerately water-rich zone in the heat reservoir
Table 5. Criterion layer judgment matrix.
Table 5. Criterion layer judgment matrix.
Geological ConditionsWater Resource ConditionsEnvironmental Impact
Geological conditions11/32
Water resource conditions315
Environmental impact1/21/51
CI = 0.02, CR = 0.004 < 1; the outcome of this matrix consistency test is successful.
Table 6. Matrix of geological condition judgment.
Table 6. Matrix of geological condition judgment.
Geological Structural FormsChemical Types of Geothermal Fluids
Geological structural forms11/3
Chemical types of geothermal fluids31
CI = 0, CR = null; the outcome of this matrix consistency test is successful.
Table 7. Calculation results of the weights of the evaluation index system.
Table 7. Calculation results of the weights of the evaluation index system.
Target LayerCriterion LayerWeighting FactorIndicator LayerWeighting FactorWeight of Individual Indicators
The delineation of areas where water extraction is prohibited or restrictedGeological conditions0.2299Geological structural forms0.250.0575
Chemical types of geothermal fluids0.750.1724
Water resource conditions0.6480Unit water output10.6480
Environmental impact0.1221The degree of guarantee for the lateral recharge volume during mining10.1221
Table 8. Scope delineation, suitability evaluation index weights, and grading standards for water intake projects for geothermal energy development and utilization.
Table 8. Scope delineation, suitability evaluation index weights, and grading standards for water intake projects for geothermal energy development and utilization.
Criterion LayerIndicator LayerWeightageEvaluation Criteria
High Suitability
(100 ≥ F ≥ 75)		Good Suitability
(75 > F ≥ 50)		Moderate Suitability
(50 > F ≥ 25)		Poor Suitability
(25 > F ≥ 0)
Geological conditionsGeological structural forms0.0575Fault; Magma intrusion bodyDepression; joint; fissureAnticline; the direction of bedding is consistent with the direction of groundwater flow.Close folds; gentle bedding of rock strata
Chemical types of geothermal fluids0.1724HCO3-Na typeHCO3·Cl-Na, Cl·HCO3-Na typeCl·SO4-Na, Cl-Na typeHigh-sulfur water; water containing heavy metals and harmful chemicals; hard water
Water resource conditionsUnit water output0.6480Unit water output > 1.0 L/(s·m)0.5 L/(s·m) < Unit water output < 1.0 L/(s·m)0.1 L/(s·m) < Unit water output < 0.5 L/(s·m)Unit water output < 0.1 L/(s·m)
Environmental impactThe degree of guarantee for the lateral recharge volume during mining0.1221The lateral recharge volume is far greater than the exploitable reserves of geothermal water.The lateral recharge volume extracted is equal to the exploitable reserves of geothermal water.The lateral recharge volume available for exploitation is slightly less than the exploitable reserves of geothermal water.The lateral recharge volume that can be exploited is far less than the exploitable reserves of geothermal water.
Table 9. Evaluation results of suitability of water intake scope delineation for geothermal energy development and utilization projects.
Table 9. Evaluation results of suitability of water intake scope delineation for geothermal energy development and utilization projects.
Zone NameSuitabilityScore
WB I ZoneGood suitability56.33
KB I ZoneGood suitability54.30
WA I ZoneGood suitability65.80
KA I ZoneGood suitability70.86
WC I ZoneGood suitability72.56
KC I ZoneGood suitability65.81
HA I ZoneGood suitability58.23
QE II ZoneModerate suitability43.01
HE II ZoneGood suitability51.24
QA I ZoneGood suitability65.24
WA II ZoneGood suitability52.15
QA II ZoneModerate suitability49.11
HA II ZoneGood suitability55.17
WD II ZoneGood suitability51.99
QD II ZoneModerate suitability46.51
HD II ZoneGood suitability50.85
HD I ZoneGood suitability61.23
Table 10. Results of regional suitability delineation.
Table 10. Results of regional suitability delineation.
Zone NameSuitability Results
WB I ZoneSuitable areas
KB I ZoneRestricted areas
WA I ZoneSuitable areas
KA I ZoneSuitable areas
WC I ZoneSuitable areas
KC I ZoneSuitable areas
HA I ZoneSuitable areas
QE II ZoneRestricted areas
HE II ZoneRestricted areas
QA I ZoneSuitable areas
WA II ZoneRestricted areas
QA II ZoneRestricted areas
HA II ZoneSuitable areas
WD II ZoneRestricted areas
QD II ZoneRestricted areas
HD II ZoneRestricted areas
HD I ZoneSuitable areas
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tian, Y.; Meng, L.; Sang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Yan, F.; Zhang, G. Defining the Range of Water Withdrawals That Are Forbidden and Regulated for Geothermal Energy Development and Use Projects: A Case Study of Lindian County, Northeast China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104609

AMA Style

Tian Y, Meng L, Sang Z, Chen Y, Yan F, Zhang G. Defining the Range of Water Withdrawals That Are Forbidden and Regulated for Geothermal Energy Development and Use Projects: A Case Study of Lindian County, Northeast China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(10):4609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104609

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tian, Ye, Lizhi Meng, Zijie Sang, Yuxiu Chen, Feiyang Yan, and Ge Zhang. 2025. "Defining the Range of Water Withdrawals That Are Forbidden and Regulated for Geothermal Energy Development and Use Projects: A Case Study of Lindian County, Northeast China" Sustainability 17, no. 10: 4609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104609

APA Style

Tian, Y., Meng, L., Sang, Z., Chen, Y., Yan, F., & Zhang, G. (2025). Defining the Range of Water Withdrawals That Are Forbidden and Regulated for Geothermal Energy Development and Use Projects: A Case Study of Lindian County, Northeast China. Sustainability, 17(10), 4609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104609

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop