4.7 Article

An unbalance-based evaluation framework on urban resources and environment carrying capacity

期刊

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103019

关键词

Unbalance development; Mechanics characteristics; Finite element idea; Sustainable development; Urban resources and environment carrying capacity

资金

  1. Shandong Social Science Fund [19BYSJ17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper focuses on studying the unbalance characteristics that need to be met when evaluating the carrying capacity of urban resources and environment. It provides a specific conceptual framework and steps for sustainable development of cities.
The evaluation and optimization of the carrying capacity of urban resources and environment is an important basis for sustainable development of cities and society. The change of urban space scale indicates that serious unbalance crisis of urban space distribution is hidden behind the rapid development. This paper aims to provide a brand-new way for meeting the unbalance characteristics when evaluating carrying capacity of resource and environment. Firstly, an analysis on the unbalance characteristics of urban development was conducted for providing a foundation for this research. Secondly, the thought of urban grid and finite element analysis were introduced to this study. As a result, a conceptual framework was designed for evaluating resources and environment carrying capacity (RECC) under the unbalance condition. This conceptual framework includes four steps, which are construction of basic database, the division of urban grid and the mechanical analysis of RECC, finite element analysis of urban unit grid, and integration of RECC. A detailed introduction of the whole process was provided. The research results will provide an innovative idea for the evaluation of urban RECCs. It can also inspire urban managers to proceed from the status quo and make full use of urban resource and environmental systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据