Contribution of Infrastructure to the Township’s Sustainable Development in Southwest China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Understanding of Township’s Sustainable Development
2.2. Research on Indicators for Accessing Sustainability
2.2.1. Assessing Indicators of Infrastructure Sustainability
2.2.2. Assessing Indicators of Regional Sustainability
2.3. Research on Infrastructure’s Effect on Sustainable Development
2.3.1. Infrastructure’s Effect on Economic Development
2.3.2. Infrastructure’s Effect on Social Development
2.3.3. Infrastructure’s Effect on Environmental Protection
3. Selection of Indicators for Assessing Sustainable Contribution of Infrastructure
3.1. Indicators for Assessing the Township’s Sustainable Development
3.2. Identification of Township’s Major Infrastructures in Southwest China
3.2.1. Literature Analysis
3.2.2. On-Site Investigation
3.3. Indicators for Assessing the SCOI of Major Infrastructure
4. Methodologies
4.1. Model for Assessing the SCOI
4.2. Measurement of Contribution Value
4.3. Calculation of Weights
4.3.1. Standardization of Indicator
4.3.2. Determination of the Weights
5. Case Study
5.1. Background of the Case
5.2. Materials
5.3. Calculation and Results
6. Discussion
6.1. Analysis of Order and Priority of Infrastructure Investment Based on SCOI
6.2. Improvement of the Infrastructures in Townships
6.3. Future Development of Infrastructure in Townships
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- She, Y.; Shen, L.; Jiao, L.; Zuo, J.; Tam, V.W.; Yan, H. Constraints to achieve infrastructure sustainability for mountainous townships in China. Habitat Int. 2018, 73, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Skitmore, M.; Jiang, S. Sustainable infrastructure projects in balancing urban-rural development: Towards the goal of efficiency and equity. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 107, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.; Jiang, S.; Yuan, H. Critical indicators for assessing the contribution of infrastructure projects to coordinated urban–rural development in China. Habitat Int. 2012, 36, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, X. Key Assessment Indicators for the Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%20Indicator%20Framework%20after%202019%20refinement_Eng.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2019).
- Lu, Z.; Peña-Mora, F.; Wang, X.R.; Shen, C.Q.; Riaz, Z. Social Impact Project Finance: An Innovative and Sustainable Infrastructure Financing Framework. Financ. Mark. Res. 2015, 123, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siew, R.; Balatbat, M.; Carmichael, D.G. A review of building/infrastructure sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2012, 2, 106–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frare, M.B.; Clauberg, A.P.; Sehnem, S.; Campos, L.M.; Spuldaro, J. Toward a sustainable development indicators system for small municipalities. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1148–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, H.; Shen, L.; Tan, Y.; Hao, J. Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 1060–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugwu, O.; Kumaraswamy, M.; Wong, A.; Ng, S. Sustainability appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1. Development of indicators and computational methods. Autom. Constr. 2006, 15, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.; Liu, X.; Li, F.; Tao, Y.; Song, Y. Comprehensive evaluation of different scale cities’ sustainable development for economy, society, and ecological infrastructure in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 163, S329–S337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hague, C. Small towns in a small country. In Findings from the Small Towns Initiative of the Built Environment Forum.Scotland; BEFS: Glasgow, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- CITYkeys Indicators for Smart City Projects and Smart Cities. Available online: http://www.citykeys-project.eu/citykeys/cities_and_regions/performance-measurement-framework, (accessed on 24 January 2022).
- ISO37120:2018: Sustainable Cities and Communities—Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/68498.html (accessed on 10 July 2021).
- Bisegna, F.; Cirrincione, L.; Casto, B.M.L.; Peri, G.; Rizzo, G.; Scaccianoce, G.; Sorrentino, G. Fostering the energy efficiency through the energy savings: The case of the University of Palermo. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering;IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe, Genova, Italy, 11–14 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Guerrieri, M.; Gennusa, M.L.; Peri, G.; Rizzo, G.; Scaccianoce, G. University campuses as small-scale models of cities: Quantitative assessment of a low carbon transition path. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Neighborhood Development Rating System; GBC LEED ND RATING SYSTEM-2009; U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Mohamed, K.E. The Implementation Model of Integrating the Three Sustainability Aspects into the Undergraduate Architectural Design Studio. J. Green Build. 2021, 16, 217–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zambon, I.; Colantoni, A.; Cecchini, M.; Mosconi, E.M. Rethinking sustainability within the viticulture realities integrating economy, landscape and energy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shi, Y.; Ge, X.; Yuan, X.; Wang, Q.; Kellett, J.; Li, F.; Ba, K. An Integrated Indicator System and Evaluation Model for Regional Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Golbazi, M.; Aktas, C.B. LEED Certification and Patient Wellbeing in Green Healthcare Facilities. J. Green Build. 2020, 15, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visvaldis, V.; Ainhoa, G.; Ralfs, P. Selecting Indicators for Sustainable Development of Small Towns: The Case of Valmiera Municipality. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 26, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- D’Andria, E.; Fiore, P.; Nesticò, A. Small Towns Recovery and Valorisation. An Innovative Protocol to Evaluate the Efficacy of Project Initiatives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, Y.; Tham, J.; Jia, S.; Sarkar, S.; Yu, L.E. Peat-forest burning smoke in Maritime Continent: Impacts on receptor PM2.5 and implications at emission sources. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 275, 116626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buggin, A.; Gennusa, M.L.; Peri, G.; Rizzo, G.; Tambani, C. Towards resilient cities: Advancements allowed by a multi-criteria optimization tool to face the new challenges of European Union’s climate and energy goals. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 609, 072047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Urban Environment. European Common Indicators. Available online: URL:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/common_indicators.htm (accessed on 13 March 2013).
- Taecharungroj, V.; Suksaroj, T.T.; Rattanapan, C. The place sustainability scale: Measuring residents’ perceptions of the sustainability of a town. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2018, 11, 370–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Bai, J.; Chen, J. An improved indicator system for evaluating the progress of sustainable development goals (SDGs) sub-target 9.1 in county level. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giaccone, A.; Lascari, G.; Peri, G.; Rizzo, G. An ex post criticism, based on stakeholders’ preferences, of a residential sector’s energy master plan: The case study of the Sicilian region. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thacker, S.; Adshead, D.; Fay, M.; Hallegatte, S.; Harvey, M.; Meller, H.; O’Regan, N.; Rozenberg, J.; Watkins, G.; Hall, J.W. Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terra, F.H.B.; Ferrari Filho, F.; Fonseca, P.C.D. Keynes on state and economic development. Rev. Political Econ. 2021, 33, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, P.; Kc, S.; Rastogi, C. Rural Access Index: A Key Development Indicator; The World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, L.; Xue, X.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, Z. The impacts of transportation infrastructure on sustainable development: Emerging trends and challenges. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Delanka-Pedige, H.M.K.; Munasinghe-Arachchige, S.P.; Abeysiriwardana-Arachchige, I.S.A.; Nirmalakhandan, N. Wastewater infrastructure for sustainable cities: Assessment based on UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2020, 28, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaishar, A.; Šťastná, M. Sustainable Development of a Peripheral Mountain Region on the State Border: Case Study of Moravské Kopanice Microregion (Moravia). Sustainability 2019, 11, 5540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Konzelmann, S.J.; Chic, V.; Fovargue-Davies, M. Keynes, capitalism and public purpose. Camb. J. Econ. 2021, 45, 591–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedrunka, K. Concepts of the sustainable development of the region. In Sustainable Production: Novel Trends in Energy, Environment and Material Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Malmir, M.; Javadi, S.; Moridi, A.; Neshat, A.; Razdar, B. A new combined framework for sustainable development using the DPSIR approach and numerical modeling. Geosci. Front. 2021, 12, 101169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ness, D.A.; Xing, K. Consumption-based and Embodied Carbodied Carbon in the Built Environment: Implications for Apec’s Low-carbon Model Town Project. J. Green Build. 2020, 15, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Gao, X.; Wu, M.; Zhu, Y.; Ye, S. The efficiency and risk to groundwater of constructed wetland system for domestic sewage treatment—A case study in Xiantao, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maalouf, A.; Mavropoulos, A.; El-Fadel, M. Global municipal solid waste infrastructure: Delivery and forecast of uncontrolled disposal. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 1028–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The Ministry of Urban and Rural Construction, the Ministry of Finance, and the National Development and Reform Commission Jointly. Evaluation Index System for Green and Low-Carbon Key Townships (Trial). 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, L.; Shuai, C.; Jiao, L.; Tan, Y.; Song, X. A global perspective on the sustainable performance of urbanization. Sustainability 2016, 8, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Almeida, A.; Silva, J.; Angelo, H. Importance of primary, secondary and tertiary industries for sustainable development. GDR 2013, 9, 146–162. [Google Scholar]
- Zhanglin, G.; Peng, L.; Jun, E.L. The role of primary and secondary industry in pulling the growth of GDP. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Computer and Communication Technologies in Agriculture Engineering(CCTAE 2010), Chengdu, China, 12–13 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, Y.; Zhijian, L. Empirical Research of Scientific and Technological Talents’s Contribution to Sustainable Development of Economic Growth in Zhejiang, China; Baidu: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Siew, Y.R. Green Township Index: Malaysia’s sustainable township rating tool. Eng. Sustain. 2018, 171, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winans, K.; Dlott, F.; Harris, E.; Dlott, J. Sustainable value mapping and analysis methodology: Enabling stakeholder participation to develop localized indicators mapped to broader sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 291, 125797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabello, J.M.; Navarro-Jurado, E.; Rodríguez, B.; Thiel-Ellul, D.; Ruiz, F. Dual weak–strong sustainability synthetic indicators using a double reference point scheme: The case of Andalucía, Spain. Oper. Res. 2019, 19, 757–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davardoust, S.; Karahan, F. Evaluation of Sustainable Rural Tourism. The Case of Uzundere District, Erzurum, Turkey. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, B.; Xu, T.; Shi, L. Analysis on sustainable urban development levels and trends in China’s cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 868–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huovila, A.; Bosch, P.; Airaksinen, M. Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? Cities 2019, 89, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciranni, A. Creating a More Sustainable City. Buildings 2018, 112, 18–19. [Google Scholar]
- Tao, Y.; Li, F.; Crittenden, J.; Lu, Z.; Ou, W.; Song, Y. Measuring urban environmental sustainability performance in China: A multi-scale comparison among different cities, urban clusters, and geographic regions. Cities 2019, 94, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egilmez, G.; Gumus, S.; Kucukvar, M. Environmental sustainability benchmarking of the US and Canada metropoles: An expert judgment-based multi-criteria decision making approach. Cities 2015, 42, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alawneh, R.; Ghazali, F.E.M.; Ali, H.; Asif, M. Assessing the contribution of water and energy efficiency in green buildings to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Jordan. Build. Environ. 2018, 146, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattaneo, T.; Giorgi, E.; Ni, M.; Manzoni, G.D. Sustainable development of rural areas in the EU and China: A common strategy for architectural design, research practice and decision-making. Buildings 2016, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- The National Development and Reform Commission, P.R.C. National New Urbanization Plan (2014–2020). Urban Plan. Forum 2014, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Chongqing Municipal People’s Government. The Guidance on the Development of Characteristic Townships in Chongqing; Chongqing Municipal People’s Government: Chongqing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- People’s Government of Yunnan Province. The Implementation Opinions on Deepening the Construction of New-Type Urbanization in Yunnan Province; People’s Government of Yunnan Province: Yunnan, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, P.R.C. Construction Practice of Characteristic Townships in Guizhou Province; Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, P.R.C.: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Sichuan Province Development and Reform Commission. Development Plan of Characteristic Townships in Sichuan Province during the 13th Five-Year Plan; Sichuan Province Development and Reform Commission: Chengdu, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, H.; Zhang, Y.; Xiu, P.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, S. Index-based analysis of industrial structure and environmental efficiency based on sewage discharge assessment in China. Alex. Eng. J. 2022, 61, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, J.; Gao, Y.; Hong, J.; Zuo, J.; Liu, W. Assessment of the Sustainable Development Capacity with the Entropy Weight Coefficient Method. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13542–13563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shen, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, X. Key factors affecting green procurement in real estate development: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 372–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.; Zhu, C. Application of entropy weight coefficient method in evaluation of soil fertility. In Recent Advances in Computer Science and Information Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2012; pp. 697–703. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, Z.-H.; Yi, Y.; Sun, J.-N. Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. J. Environ. Sci. 2006, 18, 1020–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baidu. Satellite of Jiansheng Town. Available online: http://www.fengyunditu.com/?ver=bd-wx-266&renqun_youhua=3127511 (accessed on 5 December 2021).
- Shaojie, J.I.; Zhimin, Z. Problems and Countermeasures of Water Supply System in Small Towns. J. Chongqing Univ. 2005, 11, 118–121. [Google Scholar]
- Xin, C.; Yan, F.; Jiajia, W.; Xiangwan, L.; Chihao, L. Existing problems of water supply system of a small town in Yunnan province and countermeasures thereof. Ind. Water Wastewater 2015, 46, 49–51. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Y.J.; Wang, Q.; Yang, Y.; Fu, Y.W.; Lu, C.X. Study on the energy consumption and conservation trend of sewage treatment processes. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 870, 408–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Topic | Related Literature | Main Work | Contributions | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Understanding of township’s sustainable development | [8] | Evaluated the sustainable development of small municipalities from social wellness, public management, new economies, and regional planning. | Township’s sustainable development is also the balance of three dimensions: economy, society, and environment. | |
[12] | Emphasized the importance of environment, public services, and education are important for sustainable development. | |||
[20] | Evaluated regional sustainable development based on social, economic, environmental, and resources. | |||
[18,19,21,22,23] | Discussed sustainable development from society, economy, and environment. | |||
Assesses indicators of regional sustainability | Assess indicators of infrastructure sustainability | [4,9] | Taken market supply and demand analysis and project budget as core indicators. | Provide a certain reference for indicators selection in social and environmental dimensions. |
[8] | Introduced indicators including municipal GDP per capita, waste deposited, and social housing. | |||
[10] | Introduced indicators including employment of labor, liquid waste, and initial cost. | |||
[11] | Introduced indicators including secondary industry increased, urban population density, and per capita ecological land increased. | |||
[24,25] | Introduced indicators including air quality and energy consumption are important evaluation indicators for infrastructure sustainability. | |||
Urban areas and above | [5] | Provide global indicator framework for the SDGs. | Provide a certain reference for indicators selection. | |
[13] | Introduced indicators assessing smart city and smart project based on five aspects: people, planet, prosperity, governance, and propagation. | |||
[14] | Introduced indicators assessing the city sustainability. | |||
[26] | Proposed 17 sustainable development Goals and it’s assessing indicator for the global sustainable development. | |||
Townships and small city | [22] | Introduced indicators including traffic jam, pollution, and crime as the key for town’s sustainability. | Provide important reference for indicators selection. | |
[27] | Introduced indicators assessing the township’s sustainable development through 33 survey items. | |||
[28] | Proposed an improved indicator system to assess the progress of the SDGs in the county level. | |||
Impacting of infrastructure on sustainable development | Economic effect | [15,31,32,33] | Proved that infrastructure makes an important contribution to economic development. | Discussed infrastructure’s effect on economic development. Provide important reference for economic indicators selection. |
[2,3,4,8,30] | Introduced some influence factors including personal income, regional GDP, economic benefit, etc. | |||
Social effect | [3,21,22,30,34,36] | Proved that infrastructure makes an important contribution to social development. | Discussed infrastructure’s effect on social development. Provide important reference for social indicators selection. | |
[2,8,22,35,37] | Introduced some influence factors including employment rate, population structure, social insurance coverage, etc. | |||
Environmental effect | [7,16,22,35,39] | Proved that infrastructure makes an important contribution to environment protection. | Discussed infrastructure’s effect on environmental protection. Provide important reference for environmental indicators selection. | |
[5,8,24,40,41] | Introduced some influence factors including sewage treatment, garbage disposal and water, air quality, etc. |
Dimensions | Sorts | Indicators | References |
---|---|---|---|
Economy | Economic level | GDP per capita | [8,20,43] |
Economic structure | Gross output value of primary industry | [7,44,45] | |
Gross output value of secondary industry | [44,45] | ||
Gross output value of third industry | [44,45] | ||
Fixed asset investment per capita | [46] | ||
Economic potential | Fiscal revenue | [47,48] | |
Residents living | Per capita savings | [43,49] | |
Per capita disposable income of urban residents | [27,49] | ||
Per capita disposable income of rural residents | [50] | ||
Engel coefficient | [51] | ||
Society | Population size | Growth rate of population | [20,38,49] |
Population quality | Proportion of population above college level | [22,27] | |
Population structure | Urbanization rate | [38] | |
Social insurance | Social insurance coverage | [35,37] | |
Employment | Urban unemployment rate | [9] | |
The share of non-farm workers | [23] | ||
Science and technology | The proportion of scientific and technological expenses in fiscal expenditure | [35,52] | |
Education | The proportion of educational investment in GDP | [7,22,35,49] | |
Sanitation | The proportion of health workers per 1000 people | [21,37,43] | |
Transportation | Traffic mileage | [35,52,53] | |
Environment | Resource | Agricultural acreage | [35,50] |
Water resources quantity | [22,23,43,47] | ||
Forest coverage rate | [22,47,54] | ||
Environmental quality | Air quality days up to standard rate | [23,48,53] | |
Penetration rate of safe drinking water | [38,52] | ||
Green space coverage in built-up areas | [55] | ||
Environmental control | Domestic garbage disposal rate | [37,47,55] | |
Domestic sewage treatment rate | [34,56,57] | ||
Industrial sewage treatment rate | [34,47,57] | ||
Compliance rate of industrial smoke emission | [27] | ||
Treatment rate of industrial solid waste | [52,54] | ||
The proportion of environmental protection investment in GDP | [37,54] | ||
Energy | Total end-use energy consumption per capita | [14] | |
Percentage of total end-use energy derived from renewable sources | [14,39] | ||
Percentage of population with authorized electrical service (residential) | [14] | ||
Number of gas distribution service connections per 100,000 population (residential) | [14] |
Code | Infrastructure | Frequency | Reference | Code | Infrastructure | Frequency | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Water Supply | 5 | [58,59,60,61,62] | 6 | Telecommunications | 3 | [58,59,62] |
2 | Waste disposal | 5 | [58,59,60,61,62] | 7 | Power | 2 | [60,62] |
3 | Sewage treatment | 5 | [58,59,60,61,62] | 8 | Distributed energy resource | 2 | [58,59] |
4 | Road transport | 4 | [58,59,60,62] | 9 | Logistics | 1 | [62] |
5 | Gas | 3 | [58,59,60] |
Code | Township | Province/ Municipality | Code | Township | Province/ Municipality | Code | Township | Province/ Municipality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Tiaodeng | Chongqing | 9 | Gaoxing | Sichuan | 17 | Dalucao | Guizhou |
2 | Qiantang | Chongqing | 10 | Gaoxing | Sichuan | 18 | Huangyang | Guizhou |
3 | Yanwo | Chongqing | 11 | Fangshan | Sichuane | 19 | Xinglong | Guizhou |
4 | Heishan | Chongqing | 12 | Fenshuiling | Sichuan | 20 | Yonging | Guizhou |
5 | Degan | Chongqing | 13 | Gaoleshan | Hubei | 21 | Xiazi | Guizhou |
6 | Tanghe | Chongqing | 14 | Tangya | Hubei | 22 | Chaole | Guizhou |
7 | Zhongliang | Chongqing | 15 | Qingping | Hubei | 23 | Lushi | Yunnan |
8 | Jiansheng | Chongqing | 16 | Dingzhai | Hubei | 24 | Fengshan | Yunnan |
Dimensions | Indicators | References |
---|---|---|
Economy | GDP per capita | [4,8,22] |
Gross output value of primary industry | [1,35] | |
Gross output value of secondary industry | [1,35] | |
Gross output value of third industry | [1,35] | |
Fixed asset investment per capita | [2,30] | |
Fiscal revenue | [8,35] | |
Per capita savings | [2,3,33] | |
Per capita disposable income of urban residents | [3,8,22] | |
Engel coefficient | [2,3] | |
Society | Urbanization rate | [11,30] |
Social insurance coverage | [8,35] | |
Urban unemployment rate | [2,22,35] | |
Mileage per capita | [2,22] | |
Environment | Arable land per capita | [2,63] |
Forest coverage rate | [2,8,35] | |
Air quality days up to standard rate | [3,30,64] | |
Green space coverage in built-up areas | [3,22] | |
Penetration rate of safe drinking water | [3,22] | |
Domestic garbage disposal rate | [2,3,4,8] | |
Domestic sewage treatment rate | [3,4,40] | |
Industrial sewage treatment rate | [3,4,63] | |
Compliance rate of industrial smoke emission | [2,7,24] | |
Treatment rate of industrial solid waste | [5,8,24] | |
Total end-use energy consumption per capita | [14] | |
Percentage of total end-use energy derived from renewable sources | [14,39] | |
Number of gas distribution service connections per 100,000 population (residential) | [14] |
Dimensions | Contribution Value (vij) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Road (v1j) | Sewage (v2j) | Waste (v3j) | Water (v4j) | Gas (v5j) | ||
Economy | v11 | v21 | v31 | v41 | v51 | |
v12 | v22 | v32 | v42 | v52 | ||
v13 | v23 | v33 | v43 | v53 | ||
v14 | v24 | v34 | v44 | v54 | ||
v15 | v25 | v35 | v45 | v55 | ||
v16 | v26 | v36 | v46 | v56 | ||
v17 | v27 | v37 | v47 | v57 | ||
v18 | v28 | v38 | v48 | v58 | ||
v19 | v29 | v39 | v49 | v59 | ||
Society | v110 | v210 | v310 | v410 | v510 | |
v111 | v211 | v311 | v411 | v511 | ||
v112 | v212 | v312 | v412 | v512 | ||
v113 | v213 | v313 | v413 | v513 | ||
Environment | v114 | v214 | v314 | v414 | v514 | |
v115 | v215 | v315 | v415 | v515 | ||
v116 | v216 | v316 | v416 | v516 | ||
v117 | v217 | v317 | v417 | v517 | ||
v118 | v218 | v318 | v418 | v518 | ||
v119 | v219 | v319 | v419 | v519 | ||
v120 | v220 | v320 | v420 | v520 | ||
v121 | v221 | v321 | v421 | v521 | ||
v122 | v222 | v322 | v422 | v522 | ||
v123 | v223 | v323 | v423 | v523 | ||
v124 | v224 | v324 | v424 | v524 | ||
v125 | v225 | v325 | v425 | v525 | ||
v126 | v226 | v326 | v426 | v526 |
Dimensions | Indicators | Contribution Value (vij) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Road (v1j) | Sewage (v2j) | Waste (v3j) | Water (v4j) | Gas (v5j) | |||
Economy | GDP per capita Ec1 | v11 | v21 | v31 | v41 | v51 | |
Gross output value of primary industry Ec2 | v12 | v22 | v32 | v42 | v52 | ||
Gross output value of secondary industry Ec3 | v13 | v23 | v33 | v43 | v53 | ||
Gross output value of third industry Ec4 | v14 | v24 | v34 | v44 | v54 | ||
Fiscal revenue Ec5 | v15 | v25 | v35 | v45 | v55 | ||
Per capita disposable income of urban residents Ec6 | v16 | v26 | v36 | v46 | v56 | ||
Society | Urbanization rate So1 | v17 | v27 | v37 | v47 | v57 | |
Social insurance coverage So2 | v18 | v28 | v38 | v48 | v58 | ||
Urban unemployment rate So3 | v19 | v29 | v39 | v49 | v59 | ||
Mileage per 10,000 people So4 | v110 | v210 | v310 | v410 | v510 | ||
Environment | Air quality days up to standard rate En1 | v111 | v211 | v311 | v411 | v511 | |
Penetration rate of safe drinking water En2 | v112 | v212 | v312 | v412 | v512 | ||
Domestic garbage disposal rate En3 | v113 | v213 | v313 | v413 | v513 | ||
Domestic sewage treatment rate En4 | v114 | v214 | v314 | v414 | v514 |
Indicators | Unit | Annual Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | ||
Ec1 | ¥10,000 | 20.39 | 19.87 | 20.41 | 16.60 | 15.24 |
Ec2 | ¥10,000 | 640 | 680 | 684 | 441 | 519 |
Ec3 | ¥10,000 | 569,300 | 555,100 | 559,700 | 479,099 | 444,771 |
Ec4 | ¥10,000 | 31,500 | 37,300 | 42,600 | 10,080 | 9402 |
Ec5 | ¥10,000 | 3692.07 | 3832 | 3908.45 | 3228 | 2853 |
Ec6 | ¥10,000 | 41096 | 37,911 | 35,038 | 3.2057 | 2.9546 |
So1 | % | 75.5 | 59.6 | 51.3 | 90.82 | 89.97 |
So2 | % | 95 | 95 | 95 | 33.05 | 14.28 |
So3 | % | 1.55 | 2.13 | 2.2 | 1.29 | 2.67 |
So4 | km | 21 | 21 | 21 | 18.31 | 17.59 |
En1 | Day | 309 | 307 | 302 | 301 | 292 |
En2 | % | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.9 | 99.8 |
En3 | % | 100 | 95 | 92 | 90.9 | 90 |
En4 | % | 100 | 100 | 100 | 97 | 97 |
Indicators | Contribution Value (vij) (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Road (v1j) | Sewage (v2j) | Waste (v3j) | Water (v4j) | Gas (v5j) | ||
Ec1 | 0.06 | 100.00 | 66.67 | 66.67 | 82.22 | 75.56 |
Ec2 | 0.05 | 77.78 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 60.00 | 0.00 |
Ec3 | 0.05 | 97.78 | 75.56 | 64.44 | 91.11 | 82.22 |
Ec4 | 0.09 | 95.56 | 75.56 | 80.00 | 84.44 | 82.22 |
Ec5 | 0.05 | 84.44 | 68.89 | 60.00 | 77.78 | 66.67 |
Ec6 | 0.09 | 95.56 | 71.11 | 0.00 | 77.78 | 66.67 |
So1 | 0.06 | 80.00 | 71.11 | 73.33 | 71.11 | 71.11 |
So2 | 0.16 | 66.67 | 60.00 | 62.22 | 64.44 | 60.00 |
So3 | 0.06 | 77.78 | 57.78 | 57.78 | 60.00 | 57.78 |
So4 | 0.06 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
En1 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 82.22 | 0.00 | 82.22 |
En2 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 57.78 | 0.00 | 97.78 | 0.00 |
En3 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
En4 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 95.56 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Weighted Value | 1.00 | 61.93 | 52.60 | 47.91 | 53.31 | 46.05 |
Rank | The Order According to Investigation | The Order According to SCOI | The Changes |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Road transport | Road transport | -- |
2 | Sewage treatment | Water supply | 2↑ |
3 | Waste disposal | Sewage treatment | 1↓ |
4 | Water supply | Waste disposal | 1↓ |
5 | Gas | Gas | -- |
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
She, Y.; Hu, C.; Ma, D.; Zhu, Y.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Chen, X. Contribution of Infrastructure to the Township’s Sustainable Development in Southwest China. Buildings 2022, 12, 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020164
She Y, Hu C, Ma D, Zhu Y, Tam VWY, Chen X. Contribution of Infrastructure to the Township’s Sustainable Development in Southwest China. Buildings. 2022; 12(2):164. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020164
Chicago/Turabian StyleShe, Yujuan, Changling Hu, Dejun Ma, Yahui Zhu, Vivian W. Y. Tam, and Xiangjie Chen. 2022. "Contribution of Infrastructure to the Township’s Sustainable Development in Southwest China" Buildings 12, no. 2: 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020164