4.3 Article

Entropy-based Chinese city-level MRIO table framework

期刊

ECONOMIC SYSTEMS RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 519-544

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09535314.2021.1932764

关键词

City-level; MRIO; China; maximum-entropy; consumption-based emissions

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [72091514, 41921005]
  2. UK Natural Environment Research Council [NE/P019900/1]
  3. Norwegian Research Council [287690/F20]
  4. China Scholarship Council (CSC) [201606510016]
  5. ESRC [ES/L016028/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, an entropy-based framework was proposed to construct city-level MRIO tables, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the carbon footprint of cities in China's Hebei province. A comparison of consumption-based emissions between the new MRIO and individual city input-output tables revealed a large discrepancy due to conflicting benchmark data used in the two tables.
Cities are pivotal hubs of socioeconomic activities, and consumption in cities contributes to global environmental pressures. Compiling city-level multi-regional input-output (MRIO) tables is challenging due to the scarcity of city-level data. Here we propose an entropy-based framework to construct city-level MRIO tables. We demonstrate the new construction method and present an analysis of the carbon footprint of cities in China's Hebei province. A sensitivity analysis is conducted by introducing a weight reflecting the heterogeneity between city and province data, as an important source of uncertainty is the degree to which cities and provinces have an identical ratio of intermediate demand to total demand. We compare consumption-based emissions generated from the new MRIO to results of the MRIO based on individual city input-output tables. The findings reveal a large discrepancy in consumption-based emissions between the two MRIO tables but this is due to conflicting benchmark data used in the two tables.

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

4.3
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