4.7 Article

Comparison of typical mega cities in China using emergy synthesis

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2008.03.018

Keywords

Emergy; Resource structure; Resource use efficiency; Mega urban system

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2005CB724204]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation [40701023]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An emergy-based comparison analysis is conducted for three typical mega cities in China, i.e., Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, from 1990 to 2005 in four perspectives including emergy intensity, resource Structure, environmental pressure and resource use efficiency. A new index of non-renewable emergy/money ratio is established to indicate the utilization efficiency of the non-renewable resources. The results show that for the three mega urban systems, Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, the total emergy inputs Were 3.76E+23, 3.54E+23, 2.52E+23 sej in 2005, of which 64.88%, 91.45% and 72.28% were imported from the outsides, respectively. As to the indicators of emergy intensity involving the total emergy use, emergy density and emergy use per cap, three cities exhibited similar overall increase trends with annual fluctuations from 1990 to 2005. Shanghai achieved the highest level of economic development and non-renewable resource use efficiency, and meanwhile, lower proportion of renewable resource use and higher environmental pressure compared to those of Beijing and Guangzhou. Guangzhou has long term sustainability considering an amount of local renewable resources used, per capita emergy used, energy consumption per unit GDP and the ratio of waste to renewable ernergy. It can be concluded that different emergy-based evaluation results arise from different geographical locations, resources endowments, industrial Structures and urban orientations of the concerned mega cities. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V, All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available