Design of Rural Human Settlement Unit with the Integration of Production-Living-Ecology of China Based on Dynamic Emergy Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Conception and Hierarchy Division of the Rural Human Settlement Unit
2.1.1. Rural Human Settlement Unit with the Integration of Production-Living-Ecology
- Microcosmic scale (courtyard unit)
- Mesoscale (cluster unit)
- Macroscopic scale (village unit)
2.1.2. The Hierarchy Division of the Rural Human Settlement Unit
2.2. Analytical Procedures of the Ecological Emergy Theory
2.2.1. Static Emergy Analysis Model
2.2.2. Dynamic Emergy Prediction Model
- Ecology-balanced design orientation
- Industry invigorative design orientation
- Environment-friendly design orientation
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Static Emergy Analysis of the Rural Human Settlement Unit
3.1.1. Static Emergy Analysis of the Courtyard Unit
3.1.2. Static Emergy Analysis of the Cluster Unit
3.1.3. Static Emergy Analysis of the Village Unit
3.2. Dynamic Emergy Prediction of the Rural Human Settlement Unit
3.2.1. Dynamic Emergy Prediction Model Verification
3.2.2. Dynamic Emergy Evaluation Index Prediction
4. Conclusions
- (1)
- This research creatively proposed the concept of the rural human settlement unit of China, based on the ecological circulation characteristics of the rural living environment, which can be divided into three scales: the microcosmic scale (courtyard unit), mesoscale (cluster unit), and macroscopic scale (village unit). Three design orientations, namely, the industry invigorative, the environment-friendly, and the ecology-balanced, of the rural human settlement unit were provided, corresponding with the integration of production-living-ecology.
- (2)
- The results of the static emergy analysis indicated that the ESR, EYR, and ESI values of the rural human settlement units at a smaller scale were higher than those at a larger scale, while the EIR and ELR values of rural human settlement units at a smaller scale were lower than those at a larger scale.
- (3)
- The results of the dynamic emergy prediction indicated that the ESR values of the environment-friendly rural human settlement unit > those of the ecology-balanced unit > those of the industry invigorative unit; the EIR values of the industry invigorative unit > those of the environment-friendly unit > those of the ecology-balanced unit; the EYR values of the industry invigorative unit > those of the ecology-balanced unit > those of the environment-friendly unit; the ELR values of the industry invigorative unit > those of the ecology-balanced unit > those of the environment-friendly unit; and the ESI values of the ecology-balanced unit > those of the industry invigorative unit > those of the environment-friendly unit. In addition, the ESR and ESI values basically presented a decreasing tendency from 0.34 to 0.15 and from 0.76 to 0.57, respectively, with the passage of time; the EIR, EYR, and ELR values basically presented an increasing tendency from 2.13 to 2.78, from 1.66 to 2.12, and from 2.23 to 3.61, respectively, with the passage of time.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
Emergy input of renewable natural resources | R |
Emergy input of non-renewable natural resources | N |
Total emergy input of natural resources | I |
Emergy of non-renewable purchased resources | F |
Emergy input of organic resources | O |
Total emergy input of auxiliary resources | U |
Emergy self-sufficiency ratio | ESR |
Emergy investment ratio | EIR |
Net emergy yield ratio | EYR |
Environmental load ratio | ELR |
Emergy sustainable indices | ESI |
References
- Zeng, X.; Zhao, Y.; Cheng, Z. Development and research of rural renewable energy management and ecological management information system under the background of beautiful rural revitalization strategy. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2021, 30, 100553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Liu, L. Social capital for rural revitalization in China: A critical evaluation on the government’s new countryside programme in Chengdu. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Wu, B. Revitalizing traditional villages through rural tourism: A case study of Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China. Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; You, L.; Zheng, M.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z. Energy consumption pattern and indoor thermal environment of residential building in rural China. Energy Built Environ. 2020, 1, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, X.; Liang, W.; Ding, P.; Wang, S.; Li, Y.; Long, E. Survey research on living environment and energy consumption in the west rural areas of China. Procedia Eng. 2015, 121, 1044–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y.Y.; Zhang, Y.P.; Yang, G.F.; Cheng, X.M.; Wang, J.; Xu, B. Knowledge mapping analysis of the study of rural landscape ecosystem services. Buildings 2022, 12, 1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Yang, J.; Sun, W.; He, B. Suitability of human settlements in mountainous areas from the perspective of ventilation: A case study of the main urban area of Chongqing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Ruth, M.; He, Q.; Mirzaee, S. Comprehensive evaluation of trends in human settlements quality changes and spatial differentiation characteristics of 35 Chinese major cities. Habitat Int. 2017, 70, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Q.; Yang, X.; Wu, F. A two-stage system analysis of real and pseudo urban human settlements in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musakwa, W. Data on strategically located land and spatially integrated urban human settlements in South Africa. Data Br. 2017, 15, 805–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, R.; Xu, Q.; Long, H. Spatial distribution characteristics and optimized reconstruction analysis of China’s rural settlements during the process of rapid urbanization. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Bai, Z.; Sun, Q.; Zhou, W. Rural settlement changes in compound land use areas: Characteristics and reasons of changes in a mixed mining-rural-settlement area in Shanxi Province, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 61, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cechin, A.; da Silva Araújo, V.; Amand, L. Exploring the synergy between Community Supported Agriculture and agroforestry: Institutional innovation from smallholders in a brazilian rural settlement. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 81, 246–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Sun, H.; Chen, B.; Xia, X.; Li, P. China’s rural human settlements: Qualitative evaluation, quantitative analysis and policy implications. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watts, J.D. Community living standards and rural household decision making. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 80, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Gong, H.; Yao, L.; Yu, L. Preference heterogeneity and payment willingness within rural households’ participation in rural human settlement improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Jiang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, G. Whether land greening in different geomorphic units are beneficial to water yield in the Yellow River Basin? Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, D.; Xu, J.; Lin, Z. Conflict or coordination? Assessing land use multi-functionalization using production-living-ecology analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 577, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, F.; Li, M.; Han, X.; Liu, H.; Mo, B. A production–living–ecological space model for land-use optimisation: A case study of the core Tumen River region in China. Ecol. Model. 2020, 437, 109310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Zhang, D.; Wang, H.; Li, X. What is the future for production-living-ecological spaces in the Greater Bay Area? A multi-scenario perspective based on DEE. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 131, 108171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Bao, W.; Liu, Y. Coupling coordination analysis of rural production-living-ecological space in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Song, W.; Zhang, Y. Forecast and optimal allocation of production, living and ecology water consumption in Zhangye, China. Phys. Chem. Earth. 2016, 96, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, T.; Li, D.; Wan, Q. Tradeoff of Exploitation-protection and Suitability Evaluation of Low-slope hilly from the perspective of “production-living-ecological” optimization. Phys. Chem. Earth. 2020, 120, 102943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, L.; Liu, Y.; Yang, J.; Yang, S.; Wang, Y.; Cao, z.; Hu, X. Quantitative identification and spatial analysis of land use ecological-production-living functions in rural areas on China’s southeast coast. Habitat Int. 2020, 100, 102182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, H.; Braham, W.W. Uncertainty characterization of building emergy analysis (BEmA). Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 538–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, H.; Srinivasan, R.S.; Braham, W.W.; Tilley, D.R. An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on emergy theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 654–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrić, I.; Pina, A.; Ferrão, P.; Lacarrière, B.; Le Corre, O. The impact of renovation measures on building environmental performance: An emergy approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 776–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilley, D.R. Dynamic accounting of emergy cycling. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 3734–3742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Srinivasan, R.S.; Peng, C. A systematic approach to calculate unit emergy values of cement manufacturing in china using consumption quota of dry and wet raw materials. Buildings 2020, 10, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Z.; Zhao, J.; Yao, R.; Shu, Z. Emergy-based sustainability assessment of different energy options for green buildings. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 100, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artuzo, F.D.; Allegretti, G.; Santos, O.I.B.; da Silva, L.X.; Talamini, E. Emergy unsustainability index for agricultural systems assessment: A proposal based on the laws of thermodynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 759, 143524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lewandowska-Czarnecka, A.; Buller, L.S.; Nienartowicz, A.; Piernik, A. Energy and emergy analysis for assessing changes in Polish agriculture since the accession to the European Union. Ecol. Model. 2019, 412, 108819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cristiano, S. Organic vegetables from community-supported agriculture in Italy: Emergy assessment and potential for sustainable, just, and resilient urban-rural local food production. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Wang, S.; Xue, B.; Li, R.; Geng, Y.; Yang, T.; Li, Y.; Dong, H.; Luo, Z.; Tao, W.; et al. Emergy-based indicators of the environmental impacts and driving forces of non-point source pollution from crop production in China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Yang, Y.; Hu, K.; Chen, J.; Djomo, S.N.; Yang, X.; Knudsen, M.T. Economic, environmental, and emergy analysis of China’s green tea production. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Yuan, X.; Yuan, X.; Liu, S.; Guan, B.; Sun, J.; Chen, H. Evaluating the sustainability of rural complex ecosystems during the development of traditional farming villages into tourism destinations: A diachronic emergy approach. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 86, 473–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falkowski, T.B.; Martinez-Bautista, I.; Diemont, S.A.W. How valuable could traditional ecological knowledge education be for a resource-limited future? An emergy evaluation in two Mexican villages. Ecol. Model. 2015, 300, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, Y.; Zhan, L.; Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Dong, X. How to Address “Population Decline and Land Expansion (PDLE)” of rural residential areas in the process of Urbanization:A comparative regional analysis of human-land interaction in Shandong Province. Habitat. Int. 2021, 117, 102441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, X.; Liu, D.; Tian, Y.; Liu, Y. Multi-objective spatial reconstruction of rural settlements considering intervillage social connections. Rural Stud. 2021, 84, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, Y.; Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Li, Z. How does the rural settlement transition contribute to shaping sustainable rural development? Evidence from Shandong, China. Rural Stud. 2021, 82, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, J.; Jian, Y.; Chen, W.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Y. Transitions in rural settlements and implications for rural revitalization in Guangdong Province. Rural Stud. 2022, 93, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Fang, C.; Qi, W. Different effects of human settlements changes on landscape fragmentation in China: Evidence from grid cell. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 129, 107927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Song, W.; Luy, Q. Assessing the effects of the new-type urbanization policy on rural settlement evolution using a multi-agent model. Habitat. Int. 2022, 127, 102622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cyriac, S.; Firoz, C.M. Dichotomous classification and implications in spatial planning: A case of the Rural-Urban Continuum settlements of Kerala, India. Land Use Policy 2022, 114, 105992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, Z.; Xu, Y.; Sun, M.; Liu, C.; Lu, L.; Huang, A.; Duan, Y.; Liu, L. Spatiotemporal characteristics and dynamic mechanism of rural settlements based on typical transects: A case study of Zhangjiakou City, China. Habitat. Int. 2022, 123, 102545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Z.; Ma, L.; Zhang, W.; Gong, M. Differentiation and correlation of spatial pattern and multifunction in rural settlements considering topographic gradients: Evidence from Loess Hilly Region, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 315, 115127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, G.; Liang, R.; Li, K.; Wang, Y.; Pu, X. Study on the coupling model of urbanization and water environment with basin as a unit: A study on the Hanjiang Basin in China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 131, 108130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Couto, A.; Martins, P.; Sano, E.; Martins, E.; Vieira, L.; Salemi, L.; Vasconcelos, V. Data for: Terrain units, land use/cover, and gross primary productivity of the largest fluvial basin in the Brazilian Amazonia/Cerrado ecotone: The Araguaia River Basin. Data Br. 2021, 34, 106636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Sun, W.; Li, M.; Linlin, M. Coupling coordination degree of production, living and ecological spaces and its influencing factors in the Yellow River Basin. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Niekerk, A. A comparison of land unit delineation techniques for land evaluation in the Western Cape, South Africa. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 937–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, Q.; Wang, W. Quality evaluation and division of regional types of rural human settlements in China. Habitat. Int. 2020, 105, 102278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Srinivasan, R.S.; Peng, C. Ecological assessment of clay brick manufacturing in china using emergy analysis. Buildings 2020, 10, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Corre, O.; Truffet, L.; Lahlou, C. Odum-Tennenbaum-Brown calculus vs. emergy and co-emergy analysis. Ecol. Model. 2015, 302, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Assessment Orientations | Assessment Methods | Assessment Goals |
---|---|---|
Agricultural production [38] | System dynamics [39] | Spatial planning and management [40] |
Living habitat arrangement [41] | Emergy analysis [42] | Energy source utilization [43] |
Ecological environment [44] | Analytic hierarchy process [45] | Cultural revitalization [46] |
Item | Raw Data | Unit | Transformity (sej/Unit) | Solar Emergy (sej) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Renewable natural resources (R) | Sunlight | 2.30 × 1016 | J | 1 | 2.30 × 1016 |
Rain chemical | 3.68 × 109 | J | 3.05 × 104 | 1.12 × 1014 | |
Rain potential | 4.77 × 107 | J | 4.70 × 104 | 2.24 × 1012 | |
Total | 2.31 × 1016 | ||||
Non-renewable purchased resources (P) | Construction | 3.50 × 103 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 1.19 × 1016 |
Maintenance | 2.00 × 102 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 6.80 × 1014 | |
Equipment | 5.80 × 102 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 1.97 × 1015 | |
Municipal electricity | 60.40 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 2.05 × 1013 | |
Municipal water | 16.30 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 5.54 × 1012 | |
Total | 1.46 × 1016 | ||||
Organic resources (O) | Labor force | 7.45 × 108 | J | 7.24 × 106 | 5.39 × 1015 |
Total input | 4.30 × 1016 | ||||
Planting (Y) | Bean | 5.49 × 109 | J | 6.90 × 105 | 3.79 × 1015 |
Vegetable | 1.35 × 1011 | J | 8.30 × 104 | 1.11 × 1016 | |
Fruit | 2.54 × 109 | J | 5.30 × 105 | 1.35 × 1015 | |
Potato | 1.96 × 1010 | J | 8.30 × 104 | 1.63 × 1015 | |
Total | 1.79 × 1016 | ||||
Breeding (Y) | Pork | 6.38 × 109 | J | 4.00 × 106 | 2.55 × 1016 |
Beef | 1.73 × 109 | J | 4.00 × 106 | 6.92 × 1015 | |
Poultry | 2.12 × 109 | J | 1.70 × 106 | 3.60 × 1015 | |
Dairy | 4.12 × 108 | J | 2.00 × 106 | 8.24 × 1014 | |
Egg | 6.31 × 108 | J | 2.00 × 106 | 1.26 × 1015 | |
Total | 3.81 × 1016 | ||||
Others (Y) | Photovoltaic power | 1.06 × 1010 | J | 1.65 × 105 | 1.75 × 1015 |
Total output | 5.77 × 1016 |
Item | Value |
---|---|
Emergy input of renewable natural resources (R) | 2.31 × 1016 |
Emergy input of non-renewable natural resources (N) | —— |
Total emergy input of natural resources (I) | 2.31 × 1016 |
Emergy of non-renewable purchased resources (F) | 1.46 × 1016 |
Emergy input of organic resources (O) | 5.39 × 1015 |
Total emergy input of auxiliary resources (U) | 1.99 × 1016 |
Total emergy input (T) | 4.30 × 1016 |
Total emergy output (Y) | 5.77 × 1016 |
Emergy self-sufficiency ratio (ESR) | 53.67% |
Emergy investment ratio (EIR) | 86.34% |
Net emergy yield ratio (EYR) | 289.48% |
Environmental load ratio (ELR) | 86.34% |
Emergy sustainable indices (ESI) | 3.35 |
Item | Raw Data | Unit | Transformity (sej/Unit) | Solar Emergy (sej) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Renewable natural resources (R) | Sunlight | 4.84 × 1018 | J | 1 | 4.84 × 1018 |
Rain chemical | 2.01 × 1012 | J | 3.05 × 104 | 6.13 × 1016 | |
Rain potential | 4.23 × 1010 | J | 4.70 × 104 | 1.99 × 1015 | |
Total | 4.90 × 1018 | ||||
Non-renewable natural resources (N) | Net topsoil loss | 7.56 × 1011 | J | 1.7 × 105 | 1.29 × 1017 |
Non-renewable purchased resources (P) | Construction | 1.05 × 106 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 3.58 × 1018 |
Maintenance | 7.31 × 104 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 2.49 × 1017 | |
Equipment | 6.80 × 105 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 2.31 × 1018 | |
Municipal electricity | 9.74 × 102 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 3.31 × 1014 | |
Municipal water | 5.82 × 102 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 1.98 × 1014 | |
Total | 6.14 × 1018 | ||||
Organic resources (O) | Labor force | 2.93 × 1011 | J | 7.24 × 106 | 2.23 × 1018 |
Total input | 1.34 × 1019 | ||||
Planting (Y) | Bean | 4.78 × 1011 | J | 6.90 × 105 | 3.30 × 1017 |
Vegetable | 6.52 × 1011 | J | 8.30 × 1019 | 5.41 × 1016 | |
Fruit | 1.09 × 1011 | J | 5.30 × 105 | 5.78 × 1016 | |
Potato | 1.96 × 1012 | J | 8.30 × 104 | 1.63 × 1017 | |
Corn | 8.36 × 1012 | J | 4.90 × 105 | 4.10 × 1018 | |
Wheat | 9.73 × 1012 | J | 5.10 × 105 | 4.96 × 1018 | |
Oil plant | 5.14 × 1010 | J | 6.90 × 105 | 3.55 × 1016 | |
Total | 9.70 × 1018 | ||||
Breeding (Y) | Pork | 1.02 × 1012 | J | 4.00 × 106 | 4.09 × 1018 |
Beef | 5.68 × 1011 | J | 4.00 × 106 | 2.27 × 1018 | |
Poultry | 4.35 × 1011 | J | 1.70 × 106 | 7.40 × 1017 | |
Dairy | 8.26 × 109 | J | 2.00 × 106 | 1.65 × 1016 | |
Egg | 1.77 × 1011 | J | 2.00 × 106 | 3.54 × 1017 | |
Total | 7.47 × 1018 | ||||
Others (Y) | Biogas energy | 5.65 × 1012 | J | 1.65 × 105 | 9.32 × 1017 |
Total output | 1.81 × 1019 |
Item | Value |
---|---|
Emergy input of renewable natural resources (R) | 4.90 × 1018 |
Emergy input of non-renewable natural resources (N) | 1.29 × 1017 |
Total emergy input of natural resources (I) | 5.03 × 1018 |
Emergy of non-renewable purchased resources (F) | 6.14 × 1018 |
Emergy input of organic resources (O) | 2.23 × 1018 |
Total emergy input of auxiliary resources (U) | 8.37 × 1018 |
Total emergy input (T) | 1.34 × 1019 |
Total emergy output (Y) | 1.81 × 1019 |
Emergy self-sufficiency ratio (ESR) | 37.53% |
Emergy investment ratio (EIR) | 166.48% |
Net emergy yield ratio (EYR) | 215.76% |
Environmental load ratio (ELR) | 170.84% |
Emergy sustainable indices (ESI) | 1.26 |
Item | Raw Data | Unit | Transformity (sej/Unit) | Solar Emergy (sej) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Renewable natural resources (R) | Sunlight | 6.36 × 1019 | J | 1 | 6.36 × 1019 |
Rain chemical | 3.32 × 1013 | J | 3.05 × 104 | 1.01 × 1018 | |
Rain potential | 4.64 × 1011 | J | 4.70 × 104 | 2.18 × 1016 | |
Total | 6.46 × 1019 | ||||
Non-renewable natural resources (N) | Net topsoil loss | 1.02 × 1013 | J | 1.70 × 105 | 1.74 × 1018 |
Non-renewable purchased resources (P) | Construction | 1.42 × 107 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 4.84 × 1019 |
Maintenance | 8.95 × 105 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 3.04 × 1018 | |
Equipment | 8.40 × 106 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 2.85 × 1019 | |
Municipal electricity | 2.73 × 104 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 9.28 × 1016 | |
Municipal water | 7.48 × 103 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 2.54 × 1016 | |
Total | 9.95 × 1019 | ||||
Organic resources (O) | Labor force | 4.96 × 1012 | J | 7.24 × 106 | 3.59 × 1019 |
Total input | 2.02 × 1020 | ||||
Planting (Y) | Bean | 6.57 × 1012 | J | 6.90 × 105 | 4.53 × 1018 |
Vegetable | 8.05 × 1012 | J | 8.30 × 104 | 6.68 × 1017 | |
Fruit | 2.13 × 1012 | J | 5.30 × 105 | 1.13 × 1018 | |
Potato | 4.24 × 1013 | J | 4.90 × 105 | 2.08 × 1019 | |
Corn | 5.10 × 1012 | J | 1.48 × 105 | 7.55 × 1017 | |
Wheat | 8.67 × 1013 | J | 5.10 × 105 | 4.42 × 1019 | |
Oil plant | 2.03 × 1013 | J | 8.30 × 104 | 1.68 × 1018 | |
Total | 7.38 × 1019 | ||||
Breeding (Y) | Pork | 1.71 × 1013 | J | 4.00 × 106 | 6.85 × 1019 |
Beef | 8.95 × 1012 | J | 4.00 × 106 | 3.58 × 1019 | |
Poultry | 4.35 × 1011 | J | 1.70 × 106 | 7.40 × 1017 | |
Dairy | 1.05 × 1011 | J | 2.00 × 106 | 2.09 × 1017 | |
Egg | 2.12 × 1012 | J | 2.00 × 106 | 4.24 × 1018 | |
Total | 1.09 × 1020 | ||||
Others (Y) | Biogas energy | 3.83 × 1013 | J | 1.65 × 105 | 6.32 × 1018 |
Processing product | 5.24 × 106 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 1.78 × 1019 | |
Service | 8.71 × 106 | $ | 3.40 × 1012 | 2.96 × 1019 | |
Total | 5.37 × 1019 | ||||
Total output | 2.37 × 1020 |
Item | Value |
---|---|
Emergy input of renewable natural resources (R) | 6.46 × 1019 |
Emergy input of non-renewable natural resources (N) | 1.74 × 1018 |
Total emergy input of natural resources (I) | 6.63 × 1019 |
Emergy of non-renewable purchased resources (F) | 9.95 × 1019 |
Emergy input of organic resources (O) | 3.59 × 1019 |
Total emergy input of auxiliary resources (U) | 1.35 × 1020 |
Total emergy input (T) | 2.02 × 1020 |
Total emergy output (Y) | 2.37 × 1020 |
Emergy self-sufficiency ratio (ESR) | 32.88% |
Emergy investment ratio (EIR) | 204.16% |
Net emergy yield ratio (EYR) | 174.98% |
Environmental load ratio (ELR) | 212.36% |
Emergy sustainable indices (ESI) | 0.82 |
Item | Year | Simulation Value | Actual Value | Fractional Error |
---|---|---|---|---|
ESR | 2017 | 0.38 | 0.36 | 5.56% |
2018 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 5.88% | |
2019 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 2.94% | |
2020 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0% | |
EIR | 2017 | 1.97 | 1.92 | 2.60% |
2018 | 2.02 | 1.95 | 3.59% | |
2019 | 2.05 | 2.01 | 1.99% | |
2020 | 2.08 | 2.04 | 1.96% | |
EYR | 2017 | 1.74 | 1.7 | 2.35% |
2018 | 1.75 | 1.72 | 1.74% | |
2019 | 1.77 | 1.75 | 1.14% | |
2020 | 1.78 | 1.75 | 1.69% | |
ELR | 2017 | 1.99 | 1.86 | 6.99% |
2018 | 2.05 | 1.98 | 8.59% | |
2019 | 2.14 | 2.07 | 3.38% | |
2020 | 2.31 | 2.12 | 8.96% | |
ESI | 2017 | 0.75 | 0.79 | 5.06% |
2018 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 3.80% | |
2019 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 4.94% | |
2020 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2.44% |
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. |
© 2023 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
Chang, Y.; Geng, G.; Wang, C.; Xue, Y.; Mu, T. Design of Rural Human Settlement Unit with the Integration of Production-Living-Ecology of China Based on Dynamic Emergy Analysis. Buildings 2023, 13, 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030618
Chang Y, Geng G, Wang C, Xue Y, Mu T. Design of Rural Human Settlement Unit with the Integration of Production-Living-Ecology of China Based on Dynamic Emergy Analysis. Buildings. 2023; 13(3):618. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030618
Chicago/Turabian StyleChang, Yuan, Geng Geng, Chongjie Wang, Yibing Xue, and Tian Mu. 2023. "Design of Rural Human Settlement Unit with the Integration of Production-Living-Ecology of China Based on Dynamic Emergy Analysis" Buildings 13, no. 3: 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030618