Empirical Research on the Process of Land Resource-Asset-Capitalization—A Case Study of Yanba, Jiangjin District, Chongqing
<p>The operation and transformation form of resource-asset-capitalization.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>The system boundary of the process of land resource-asset-capitalization.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Contributions of different environmental indicators after standardization and weighting.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The composition of environmental indicators in the process of land resource-asset-capitalization.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>The contributions of environmental indicators in different links of land resource-asset-capitalization.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Life cycle costs versus environmental impacts in the process of land resource-asset-capitalization.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Life cycle costs versus environmental impacts in the process of land asset-capitalization.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Changes of ecosystem services before and after land asset-capitalization.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Chongqing Land Tickets
2.2. General Situation of the Study Area
2.3. Life Cycle Assessment
2.3.1. Evaluation Objective
2.3.2. Functional Unit
2.3.3. System Boundary
2.3.4. Data Sources
2.3.5. Impact Categories and Impact Assessment Methodology
2.3.6. Life Cycle Cost
2.4. Value Assessment of Ecosystem Services
3. Results
3.1. Environmental Impact Assessment of Land Resource-Asset-Capitalization Process
3.2. Analysis of Integrated Environment-Cost Factors of Land Resource-Asset-Capitalization
3.3. Analysis of the Process of Land Resource-Asset
3.4. Analysis of the Process of Land Asset-Capitalization
4. Discussions
4.1. Sensitivity Analysis of Environmental Impacts in the Process of Resource-Asset-Capitalization
4.2. Value Composition Analysis of Land Resource-Asset-Capitalization
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Liu, W.; Chen, W.P.; Feng, Q.; Peng, C.; Kang, P. Cost-benefit analysis of green infrastructures on community stormwater reduction and utilization: A case of Beijing, China. Environ. Manag. 2016, 58, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Maack, J.; Lingenfelder, M.; Smaltschinski, T.; Jaeger, D.; Koch, B. Exploring the regional potential of lignocellulosic biomass for an emerging bio-based economy: A case study from southwest Germany. Forests 2017, 8, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bach, V.; Finogenova, N.; Berger, M.; Winter, L.; Finkbeiner, M. Enhancing the assessment of critical resource use at the country level with the SCARCE method—Case study of Germany. Resour. Policy 2017, 53, 283–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akpona, T.J.D.; Akpona, H.A.; Djossa, B.A.; Savi, M.K.; Dainou, K.; Ayihouenou, B.; Kakai, R.G. Impact of land use practices on traits and production of shea butter tree (Vitellaria paradoxa, C.F. Gaertn.) in Pendjari Biosphere Reserve in Benin. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 90, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meer, E.V.D. Carnivore conservation under land use change: The status of Zimbabwe’s cheetah population after land reform. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017, 27, 647–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, D.M.; Li, X.S.; Qu, F.T.; Li, M.Y.; Zhang, S.L.; Gong, Y.L.; Shi, X.P.; Chen, X. Driving mechanism and boundary control of urban sprawl. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2015, 9, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, G.J.; Qiao, Z.; Gao, X.L. Rural settlement land dynamic modes and policy implications in Beijing metropolitan region, China. Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.H.; Westland, H.; Zheng, X.Y.; Liu, Y.S. Bottom-up initiatives and revival in the face of rural decline: Case studies from China and Sweden. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 506–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, M.; Xie, Y.; Cao, Q. Spatiotemporal changes in rural settlement land and rural population in the middle basin of the Heihe river, China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Z.; Liu, S.H.; Jin, H.R.; Qi, W. Rural population change in China: Spatial differences, driving forces and policy implications. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 51, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, W.; Chen, Y. China’s economic development transformation and reform path breakthrough under the new normal. Study Explor. 2017, 258, 103–110. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, J.X.; Fan, X.S.; Li, H.M.; Tian, M.R. Research on constituent elements, operation modes and political demands for capitalizing ecological assets. Res. Environ. Sci. 2016, 29, 315–322. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.R.; Fan, Y.J. Management of resources, assets and capital of urban industrial park: Comment on study on integration management of resources, assets and capital of urban industrial park. Issues Agric. Econ. 2018, 9, 143–144. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Q. Public participation in the process of ecological capitalization: A study based on the investigation of Fuzhou, Jiangxi province. J. Poyang Lake 2018, 5, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
- Daniels, E.E.; Lenderink, G.; Hutjes, R.W.A.; Holtslag, A.A.M. Observed urban effects on precipitation along the Dutch West coast. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 2111–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagheri, B.; Tousi, S.N. An explanation of urban sprawl phenomenon in Shiraz Metropolitan Area (SMA). Cities 2017, 73, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zambon, I.; Benedetti, A.; Ferrara, C.; Salvati, L. Soil matters? A multivariate analysis of socioeconomic constraints to urban expansion in mediterranean Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 146, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madanian, M.; Soffianian, A.R.; Koupai, S.S.; Pourmanafi, S.; Momeni, M. Analyzing the effects of urban expansion on land surface temperature patterns by landscape metrics: A case study of Isfahan city, Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morano, P.; Tajani, F. Saving soil and financial feasibility. A model to support public-private partnerships in the regeneration of abandoned areas. Land Use Policy 2018, 73, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lichtenberg, E.; Ding, C.R. Assessing farmland protection policy in China. Land Use Policy 2008, 25, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, C.; Mcvittie, A.; Moran, D. What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods. J. Rural Stud. 2004, 20, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nickerson, C.J.; Daniel, H. Protecting rural amenities through farmland preservation programs. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2003, 32, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jin, J.J.; Jiang, C.; Li, L. The economic valuation of cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation study in Wenling City, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 119, 158–164. [Google Scholar]
- Newman, L.; Powell, L.J.; Wittman, H. Landscapes of food production in agriburbia: Farmland protection and local food movements in British Columbia. J. Rural Stud. 2015, 39, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrin, C.; Nougaredes, B.; Sini, L.; Branduini, P.; Salvati, L. Governance changes in peri-urban farmland protection following decentralisation: A comparison between Montpellier (France) and Rome (Italy). Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 535–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duke, J.M.; Aull-Hyde, R. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, Y.; Burton, M.; Cai, Y.Y.; Zhang, A.L. Exploring heterogeneous preference for farmland non-market values in Wuhan, Central China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Torre, C.M.; Morano, P.; Tajani, F. Saving Soil for Sustainable Land Use. Sustainability 2017, 9, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ren, P.; Wu, T.; Zhou, J.M. Analysis and assessment of the implementation performance of the policy of the increase and decrease linking for construction land. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2014, 35, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
- Gu, H.L.; Fen, S.Y.; Qu, F.T. Comparison of the two modes of the linkage between urban construction land increase and rural residential land decrease in Chongqing. China Land Sci. 2014, 28, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.; Zhang, W.; Fen, C.C. Risk identification and evaluation of the construction land securities in Chongqing based on set-valued statistics and hierarchy. Trop. Geogr. 2017, 37, 356–364. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, P.; Wang, Q. Analysis of intrinsic value and pricing model of land tickets transaction—Taking Chongqing as an example. Rural Econ. 2017, 5, 39–45. [Google Scholar]
- Chongqing Country Land Exchange. Land Tickets Exchange. Available online: https://www.ccle.cn/page/dpjy/index (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- Fan, W.G.; Dong, X.B.; Wei, H.J.; Weng, B.Q.; Liang, L.; Xu, Z.H.; Wang, X.C.; Wu, F.L.; Chen, Z.D.; Jin, Y.; et al. Is it true that the longer the extended industrial chain, the better the circular agriculture? A case study of circular agriculture industry company in Fuqing, Fujian. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levasseur, A.; Bahn, O.; Beloin-Saint-Pierre, D.; Marinova, M.; Vaillancourt, K. Assessing butanol from integrated forest biorefinery: A combined techno-economic and life cycle approach. Appl. Energy 2017, 198, 440–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khatri, P.; Jain, S.; Pandey, S. A cradle-to-gate assessment of environmental impacts for production of mustard oil using life cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 988–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilpin, G.S.; Andrae, A.S.G. Comparative attributional life cycle assessment of European cellulase enzyme production for use in second-generation lignocellulosic bioethanol production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1034–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, R.F.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Z.W. Environmental impacts of reclamation and recycling processes of refrigerators using life cycle assessment (LCA) methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.J.; Yun, W.G.; Cho, N.; Ha, J. Life cycle assessment based environmental impact estimation model for pre-stressed concrete beam bridge in the early design phase. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 64, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, W.G.; Zhang, P.; Xu, Z.H.; Wei, H.J.; Lu, N.C.; Wang, X.C.; Weng, B.Q.; Chen, Z.D.; Wu, F.L.; Dong, X.B. Life cycle environmental impact assessment of circular agriculture: A case study in Fuqing, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sengupta, D.; Hawkins, T.R.; Smith, R.L. Using national inventories for estimating environmental impacts of products from industrial sectors: A case study of ethanol and gasoline. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez, E.; Blanco, J.; Jimenez, E.; Saenz-Diez, J.C.; Sanz, F. Comparative evaluation of life cycle impact assessment software tools through a wind turbine case study. Renew. Energy 2015, 74, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonanzas, J.; Arbeloa-Ibero, M.; Quinn, J.C. Comparative life cycle assessment of fixed and single axis tracking systems for photovoltaics. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. LCIA: The ReCiPe model. Available online: https://www.rivm.nl/en/life-cycle-assessment-lca/recipe (accessed on 6 February 2020).
- Ye, L.P.; Hong, J.L.; Ma, X.T.; Qi, C.C.; Yang, D. Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of ceramic tile production: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod 2018, 189, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture Methods and Results; Executive Summary: Paris, France, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, H.J.; Fan, W.G.; Wang, X.C.; Lu, N.C.; Dong, X.B.; Zhao, Y.N.; Ya, X.J.; Zhao, Y.F. Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 25, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.H.; Wei, H.J.; Fan, W.G.; Wang, X.C.; Huang, B.L.; Lu, N.H.; Ren, J.H.; Dong, X.B. Energy modeling simulation of changes in ecosystem services before and after the implementation of a Grain-for-Green program on the Loess Plateau—A case study of the Zhifanggou valley in Ansai County, Shaanxi province, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.Y.; Wu, J.; Zhang, X.S. Study of the methodology of evaluating paddy ecosystem’s multifunction. Environ. Prot. Sci. 2017, 43, 75–81. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, C.B.; Qian, F.J.; Liu, P. Situation and evaluation of agricultural straw resource utilization. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 34, 147–150. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, H.Z. Market failure and loss of ecosystem service value of farmland in the process of farmland conversion—A case study of Jiangsu Province. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2010, 18, 1366–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.D.; Zhen, L.; Lu, C.X.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, C. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. J. Nat. Resour. 2008, 23, 911–919. [Google Scholar]
- You, S.C.; Li, W.Q. Estimation of soil erosion supported by Gis—A case study in Guanji township, Taihe, Jiangxi. J. Nat. Resour. 1999, 14, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, M.C.; Zhang, D.; Li, W.H. Evaluation of comprehensive benefit of rice-fish agriculture and rice monocropping—A case study of Qingtian County, Zhejiang Province. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2010, 18, 164–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiang, P.A.; Huang, H.; Yan, H.M. Environmental cost of rice production in Dongting Lake area of Hunan Province. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 16, 183–189. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, X.Z.; Xiao, H.Y.; Yan, W.T.; Li, B. Dynamic analysis of land use and ecosystem services value in Cheng-Yu Economic Zone, Southwest China. Chin. J. Ecol. 2012, 31, 180–186. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Z.Z.; Tang, Y.J.; Chi, Y.; Ni, M.J.; Buekens, A. Waste-to-energy: A review of life cycle assessment and its extension methods. Waste Manag. Res. 2018, 36, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, L.J. A Study on the Price Forming Mechanism of Land Ticket; Chongqing University: Chongqing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Building Demolition Project | Land Leveling Project | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Categories | Amount | Cost (Yuan) | Categories | Amount | Cost (Yuan) | |
Raw materials | Tap water | 863.91 kg | 2.59 | Tap water | 612.32 kg | 1.84 |
Stone slab | 7100 kg | 530.4 | ||||
Reused stone slab | 47,867.22 kg | 1930.01 | ||||
Energy | Electricity | 74.99 kW·h | 59.44 | Electricity | 44.24 kW·h | 35.06 |
Gasoline | 171.48 kg | 1685.61 | ||||
Diesel | 657.31 kg | 4719.49 | Diesel | 46.57 kg | 334.37 | |
Labors | Class A workers | 271.6 workdays | 14,666.25 | Class A workers | 11.32 workdays | 611.28 |
Class B workers | 1458.36 workdays | 59,792.76 | Class B workers | 185.35 workdays | 7599.35 | |
Mechanical | Crane (14.3 Km) | 0.37 Shift | 173.17 | Excavator (38.3 km) | 0.92 Shift | 574.76 |
Trailer head (14.3 Km) | 0.37 Shift | 172.83 | ||||
Excavator (38.3 Km) | 8.51 Shift | 7122.36 | ||||
Bulldozer (14.3 Km) | 0.79 Shift | 351.79 | ||||
Ramming machine (14.3 Km) | 2.39 Shift | 331.02 | ||||
Dump Truck (14.3 Km) | 3.68 Shift | 1502.74 | ||||
Measures fee | 3849.65 | 493.73 | ||||
Indirect fee | 5193.65 | 666.09 | ||||
Profit | 2988.7 | 383.31 | ||||
Tax | 3304.11 | 423.76 |
Farmland Irrigation Project | Field Road Project | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Categories | Amount | Cost (Yuan) | Categories | Amount | Cost (Yuan) | |
Raw materials | Tap water | 1702.67 kg | 5.11 | Tap water | 1208.71kg | 3.63 |
Cement 32.5 | 570.71 kg | 199.75 | Cement 32.5 | 2274.88 kg | 800.19 | |
Fine sand | 2349.51 kg | 213.89 | Fine sand | 4732 kg | 430.78 | |
Gravel 40 mm | 1693.94 kg | 167.32 | Gravel 40mm | 8203 kg | 810.27 | |
Limestone | 2103.01 kg | 132.49 | Wood fibers panel | 111.80 kg | 64.43 | |
Wood fibers panel | 52.57 kg | 30.3 | Reused stone slab | 95,032.39 kg | 3831.71 | |
Steel plate | 0.10 kg | 0.47 | Stone slab | 5040 kg | 376.08 | |
Steel section | 0.31 kg | 1.33 | Concrete C20 | 14,773.50 kg | 1787.41 | |
Cast iron component | 0.02 kg | 0.09 | ||||
Steel billet | 0.10 kg | 0.04 | ||||
Stone slab | 2575 kg | 192.15 | ||||
Reused stone slab | 6920.38 kg | 279.01 | ||||
Concrete C20 | 2682.32 kg | 324.53 | ||||
Normal mortar | 1685.91 kg | 207.59 | ||||
Energy | Diesel | 4.32 kg | 31.02 | Diesel | 10.25 kg | 73.6 |
Electricity | 4.18 kW·h | 3.32 | Electricity | 30.20 kW·h | 23.93 | |
Labors | Class A workers | 0.51 workdays | 27.54 | Class A workers | 6.92 workdays | 373.68 |
Class B workers | 5.32 workdays | 218.12 | Class B workers | 39.21 workdays | 1607.61 | |
Mechanical | Sawing machine (14.3 km) | 0.05 Shift | 7.28 | Ramming machine (14.3 Km) | 1.23 Shift | 170.40 |
Concrete mixer machine (14.3 km) | 0.04 Shift | 7.7 | ||||
Vibrator (14.3 km) | 0.11 Shift | 2.48 | Concrete mixer machine (14.3 km) | 0.42 Shift | 89.06 | |
Sand gun (14.3 km) | 0.04 Shift | 6.96 | ||||
Double rubber wheel (14.3 km) | 0.20 Shift | 0.55 | Dump Truck (14.3 Km) | 0.32 | 185.84 | |
Electric welder (14.3 km) | 0.05 Shift | 10.32 | ||||
Measures fee | 87.95 | 451.72 | ||||
Indirect fee | 118.65 | 609.42 | ||||
Profit | 68.28 | 350.69 | ||||
Tax | 75.48 | 387.7 |
Categories | Corn Planting | Sweet Potato Planting | Wheat Planting | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amount | Cost (Yuan) | Amount | Cost (Yuan) | Amount | Cost (Yuan) | |
Seedlings | 15.02 kg | 450.65 | 1573.56 kg | 2360.33 | 209.60 kg | 943.21 |
Organic fertilizer | 1498.66 kg | 899.2 | 749.33 kg | 449.33 | 1224.43 kg | 734.66 |
Npk | 227.94 kg | 524.27 | 78.68 kg | 180.97 | ||
Tricalcium phosphate | 165.06 kg | 140.3 | 35.67 kg | 30.32 | ||
Urea | 75.95 kg | 167.08 | ||||
Pesticide | 2.25 kg | 71.94 | 15.13 kg | 484.04 | 7.01 kg | 224.52 |
Electricity | 24.86 kW·h | 19.7 | 51.16 kW·h | 40.54 | 43.14 kW·h | 34.19 |
Tap water | 111,997.65 kg | 335.99 | 243,823.71 kg | 731.47 | 149,865.85 kg | 449.6 |
Area | 0.5 ha | 0.5 ha | 1 ha | |||
Total income | 7897.5 | 15,000 | 6240 | |||
Net income | 5288.38 | 10,934.01 | 3642.55 |
Ecosystem Services | Instructions | Calculation Method | Method Statement |
---|---|---|---|
Provisioning Services | Vy is the value of Food Production; TRV is the total value of food production; TRC is the cost of food production. | ||
Crop production [49] | Food production | Vy = TRV–TRC | |
Regulating Services | |||
Climate regulation [50] | Carbon fixation and oxygen production | Vco2 = Qg × (1 + kg) × 1.63 × 0.27 × fc Vo2 = Qg× (1 + kg) × 1.07 × Co2 | Vco2 is value of carbon fixation; Vo2 is value of O2 production; Qg is crop production; Kg is the grass valley ratio; fc is the carbon tax rate; Co2 is industrial oxygen cost. |
Water conservation [51] | Dominating the conservation of groundwater | Vw = (R − E) × Area × Pw | Vw is the value of water conservation; R is the regional average precipitation; E is the evapotranspiration; Pw is the storage cost of water |
Waste treatment [52] | Garbage, etc., poured into farmland, can be purified | Vwt = Ewt× Area | Vwt is the value of waste treatment; Ewt is the value factor. |
Supporting Services | Qsm is the amount of soil conservation, R is the rainfall erosivity index; K is the soil erodibility factor; LS is the slope and length gradient factor; C is the vegetation coverage factor; P is the soil conservation factor; Qei is the soil content of N, P, K; Pei is the price of N, P, K fertilizer. | ||
Soil conservation [53] | Conserving soil and maintaining soil’s nutrient values | Qsm = R × K × LS × (1 − C × P) Ves = ∑Qsm× Qei × Pei (i = N, P, K) | |
Biodiversity [52] | Maintaining biodiversity | Vb = Eb × Area | Vb is the value of biodiversity; Eb is the value factor. |
Cultural Services | Vm is the value of maintain landscape culture; Vi is the actual expenses, such as ticket fees, tolls, etc. | ||
Maintain landscape culture [54] | Ornamental farmland has landscape values | Vm = ∑Vi | |
Negative Services | |||
Fertilizer pollution [55] | The soil, air, and water pollution of fertilizer use | Cf = Tv× Qf × Pv | Cf is the economic loss caused by cadmium pollution; Tv is the total crop yield; Qf is the over-standard rate of cadmium in crops; Pv is the price of agricultural products. |
Pesticide pollution [55] | Pesticide has an impact on biodiversity and crop quality | Cp = Tv × Qb × Pv + Tv × Qq × Pv | Cp is the economic loss caused by pesticide pollution; Qb is reduced production due to reduced biodiversity; Qq is contaminated proportion due to pesticides. |
Categories | Values | Unites | Categories | Values | Unites |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate change | 1.01 × 104 | kg CO2-Equiv. | Marine eutrophication | 5.95 × 100 | kg N-Equiv. |
Human toxicity | 1.33 × 104 | kg 1,4-DB eq. | Metal depletion | 3.37 × 102 | kg Fe eq. |
Fossil depletion | 3.29 × 103 | kg oil eq. | Ozone depletion | 8.65 × 10−11 | kg CFC-11 eq. |
Freshwater ecotoxicity | 2.34 × 100 | kg 1,4-DB eq. | Particulate matter formation | 2.81 × 101 | kg PM10 eq. |
Freshwater eutrophication | 2.30 × 10−1 | kg P eq. | Photochemical oxidant formation | 6.80 × 101 | kg NMVOC |
Agricultural land occupation | 1.27 × 10−7 | m2a | Terrestrial acidification | 8.12 × 101 | kg SO2 eq. |
Ionizing radiation | 3.96 × 102 | kg U235 eq. | Terrestrial ecotoxicity | 2.58 × 100 | kg 1,4-DB eq. |
Marine ecotoxicity | 6.02 × 103 | kg 1,4-DB eq. |
Categories | Building Demolition | Land Leveling | Farmland Irrigation | Field Road | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environment Impact | Cost (Yuan) | Environment Impact | Cost (Yuan) | Environment Impact | Cost (Yuan) | Environment Impact | Cost (Yuan) | |
Tap water | 2.53 × 10−3 | 2.59 × 100 | 1.79 × 10−3 | 1.84 × 100 | 2.35 × 10−3 | 5.11 × 100 | 3.54 × 10−3 | 3.63 × 100 |
Electricity | 6.25 × 10−1 | 5.94 × 101 | 3.68 × 10−1 | 3.51 × 101 | 1.64 × 10−2 | 3.32 × 100 | 2.52 × 10−1 | 2.39 × 101 |
Equipment and Transportation | 8.25 × 10−2 | 9.65 × 103 | 3.99 × 10−2 | 5.75 × 102 | 3.99 × 10−2 | 3.53 × 101 | 7.43 × 10−3 | 4.45 × 102 |
Diesel | 2.66 × 101 | 4.72 × 103 | 1.88 × 100 | 3.34 × 102 | 8.24 × 10−2 | 3.10 × 101 | 4.15 × 10−1 | 7.36 × 101 |
Gasoline | 7.33 × 100 | 1.69 × 103 | ||||||
Stone slabs | 5.14 × 101 | 5.30 × 102 | 8.80 × 100 | 1.92 × 102 | 3.65 × 101 | 3.76 × 102 | ||
Fine sand | 1.04 × 10−1 | 2.14 × 102 | 4.44 × 10−1 | 4.31 × 102 | ||||
Gravel | 7.50 × 10−2 | 1.67 × 102 | 7.70 × 10−1 | 8.10 × 102 | ||||
Concrete | 1.21 × 100 | 3.25 × 102 | 1.42 × 101 | 1.79 × 103 | ||||
Cement | 1.52 × 100 | 2.00 × 102 | 1.28 × 101 | 8.00 × 102 | ||||
Wood fibers panels | 1.21 × 10−1 | 3.03 × 101 | 5.45 × 10−1 | 6.44 × 101 | ||||
Limestone | 2.60 × 10−1 | 1.32 × 102 | ||||||
Normal mortar | 4.44 × 10−1 | 2.08 × 102 | ||||||
Cast iron component | 2.45 × 10−4 | 9.00 × 10−2 | ||||||
Steel plates | 2.08 × 10−3 | 4.70 × 10−1 | ||||||
Steel billets | 3.05 × 10−3 | 4.00 × 10−2 | ||||||
Steel sections | 3.71 × 10−3 | 1.33 × 100 |
Categories | Sweet Potato Planting | Wheat Planting | Corn Planting |
---|---|---|---|
Area(ha) | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.50 |
Environmental impact | 10.30 | 13.76 | 18.03 |
Total income (Yuan) | 15,000.00 | 6240.00 | 7897.50 |
Cost (Yuan) | 4065.99 | 2597.45 | 2609.12 |
Net income (Yuan) | 10,934.01 | 3642.55 | 5288.38 |
Net income per unit environmental load | 1061.55 | 264.72 | 293.31 |
Categories | Building Demolition Project | Land Leveling Project | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameter | Diesel | Gasoline | Electricity | Mechanical Transportation and Use | Diesel | Stone Slabs | Electricity | Mechanical Transportation and Use |
Variation | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% |
Ht | 1.91 × 10−2 | 5.06 × 10−3 | 3.28 × 10−4 | 5.79 × 10−5 | 1.12 × 10−3 | 2.46 × 10−2 | 1.94 × 10−4 | 2.80 × 10−5 |
Me | 1.18 × 10−2 | 3.21 × 10−3 | 2.02 × 10−4 | 3.35 × 10−5 | 6.95 × 10−4 | 2.52 × 10−2 | 1.19 × 10−4 | 1.62 × 10−5 |
Fd | 2.30 × 10−2 | 6.16 × 10−3 | 5.26 × 10−4 | 4.74 × 10−5 | 1.35 × 10−3 | 1.88 × 10−2 | 3.10 × 10−4 | 2.29 × 10−5 |
Cc | 2.69 × 10−3 | 1.19 × 10−3 | 7.23 × 10−4 | 4.70 × 10−5 | 1.58 × 10−4 | 2.15 × 10−2 | 4.27 × 10−4 | 2.27 × 10−5 |
Pmf | 1.33 × 10−3 | 4.53 × 10−4 | 1.05 × 10−4 | 4.65 × 10−6 | 7.81 × 10−5 | 3.50 × 10−2 | 6.19 × 10−5 | 2.20 × 10−6 |
Ta | 1.89 × 10−3 | 5.83 × 10−4 | 1.31 × 10−4 | 5.10 × 10−6 | 1.11 × 10−4 | 4.12 × 10−2 | 7.72 × 10−5 | 2.44 × 10−6 |
Categories | Farmland Irrigation Project | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameter | Diesel | Cement | Fine Sand | Limestone | Wood Fibers Panels | Steel Plates | Stone Slabs | Concrete C20 | Normal Mortar |
Variation | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% |
Ht | 7.31 × 10−4 | 6.62 × 10−4 | 6.21 × 10−5 | 9.11 × 10−5 | 2.63 × 10−5 | 1.64 × 10−7 | 4.20 × 10−3 | 5.83 × 10−4 | 1.78 × 10−4 |
Me | 4.53 × 10−4 | 5.84 × 10−4 | 7.11 × 10−5 | 6.60 × 10−5 | 1.76 × 10−5 | 2.04 × 10−7 | 4.32 × 10−3 | 7.07 × 10−4 | 1.60 × 10−4 |
Fd | 8.82 × 10−4 | 5.42 × 10−4 | 2.97 × 10−5 | 2.09 × 10−4 | 7.97 × 10−5 | 8.22 × 10−7 | 3.21 × 10−3 | 4.89 × 10−4 | 1.80 × 10−4 |
Cc | 1.03 × 10−4 | 2.27 × 10−3 | 3.47 × 10−5 | 2.39 × 10−4 | 1.46 × 10−4 | 1.14 × 10−6 | 3.69 × 10−3 | 1.34 × 10−3 | 6.82 × 10−4 |
Pmf | 5.09 × 10−5 | 5.84 × 10−4 | 9.34 × 10−5 | 3.24 × 10−4 | 2.73 × 10−5 | 3.65 × 10−7 | 6.00 × 10−3 | 5.55 × 10−4 | 1.94 × 10−4 |
Ta | 7.25 × 10−5 | 4.55 × 10−4 | 1.51 × 10−5 | 6.97 × 10−5 | 2.24 × 10−5 | 3.17 × 10−7 | 7.05 × 10−3 | 3.45 × 10−4 | 9.29 × 10−5 |
Categories | Field Road Project | Planting Project | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameter | Cement 32.5 | Fine Sand | Gravel | Stone Slab | Concrete C20 | Organic Fertilizer | Pesticides | Npk | Urea |
Variation | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% |
Ht | 5.60 × 10−3 | 2.86 × 10−3 | 9.49 × 10−4 | 1.74 × 10−2 | 3.54 × 10−3 | 5.06 × 10−3 | 1.34 × 10−3 | 2.17 × 10−4 | 2.07 × 10−4 |
Me | 4.93 × 10−3 | 3.28 × 10−3 | 1.09 × 10−3 | 1.79 × 10−2 | 4.30 × 10−3 | 1.47 × 10−2 | 8.69 × 10−4 | 1.62 × 10−4 | 1.62 × 10−4 |
Fd | 4.58 × 10−3 | 1.37 × 10−3 | 4.55 × 10−4 | 1.33 × 10−2 | 2.97 × 10−3 | 6.68 × 10−3 | 2.83 × 10−3 | 2.12 × 10−3 | 1.78 × 10−3 |
Cc | 1.92 × 10−2 | 1.60 × 10−3 | 5.31 × 10−4 | 1.53 × 10−2 | 8.14 × 10−3 | 7.50 × 10−3 | 2.03 × 10−3 | 2.00 × 10−3 | 1.08 × 10−3 |
Pmf | 4.93 × 10−3 | 4.30 × 10−3 | 1.43 × 10−3 | 2.49 × 10−2 | 3.37 × 10−3 | 1.13 × 10−2 | 4.70 × 10−4 | 7.29 × 10−4 | 1.74 × 10−4 |
Ta | 3.84 × 10−3 | 6.94 × 10−4 | 2.31 × 10−4 | 2.92 × 10−2 | 2.10 × 10−3 | 7.15 × 10−3 | 6.28 × 10−4 | 6.77 × 10−4 | 2.87 × 10−4 |
Categories | Cost and Benefit Details | Cost (104 yuan) |
---|---|---|
Reclamation cost | Engineering cost | 13.43 |
Other cost | 4.50 | |
Contingency cost | 0.60 | |
Compensation cost | Compensation for buildings and above-ground structures | 144.00 |
Compensation for land use rights | 27.00 | |
Housing subsidies | 34.20 | |
Compensation for rural collective organizations | 25.50 | |
Changes in values of ecosystem services | Provisioning services | 1.99 |
Regulating services | 2.71 | |
Supporting services | 1.18 | |
Negative services | −0.42 | |
Land development rights | 162.84 | |
Total value of land tickets | 417.53 | |
The actual price of land tickets | 285.00 |
© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fan, W.; Chen, N.; Li, X.; Wei, H.; Wang, X. Empirical Research on the Process of Land Resource-Asset-Capitalization—A Case Study of Yanba, Jiangjin District, Chongqing. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1236. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031236
Fan W, Chen N, Li X, Wei H, Wang X. Empirical Research on the Process of Land Resource-Asset-Capitalization—A Case Study of Yanba, Jiangjin District, Chongqing. Sustainability. 2020; 12(3):1236. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031236
Chicago/Turabian StyleFan, Weiguo, Nan Chen, Ximeng Li, Hejie Wei, and Xuechao Wang. 2020. "Empirical Research on the Process of Land Resource-Asset-Capitalization—A Case Study of Yanba, Jiangjin District, Chongqing" Sustainability 12, no. 3: 1236. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031236