Ucc 2

Journal Pre-proof
Analysis on the effectiveness of indicators for evaluating urban carrying capacity:

A popularity-suitability perspective
Zhi Liu, Yitian Ren, Liyin Shen, Xia Liao, Xiaoxuan Wei, Jinhuan Wang
PII: S0959-6526(19)33889-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119019
Reference: JCLP 119019
To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production
Received Date: 05 June 2019

Accepted Date: 22 October 2019
Please cite this article as: Zhi Liu, Yitian Ren, Liyin Shen, Xia Liao, Xiaoxuan Wei, Jinhuan Wang,
Analysis on the effectiveness of indicators for evaluating urban carrying capacity: A popularity-
suitability perspective, Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2019.119019
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Journal Pre-proof
Analysis on the effectiveness of indicators for evaluating

urban carrying capacity: A popularity-suitability
perspective
Zhi Liu a, b, Yitian Ren c, Liyin Shen a, b*, Xia Liao a, b, Xiaoxuan Wei a, b, Jinhuan Wang
a,b
a School of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University,

Chongqing, PR China
b International Research Center for Sustainable Built Environment, Chongqing
University, Chongqing, PR China
c Department of Planning and Environmental Management, Manchester Urban Institute,
The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
* Corresponding author: Liyin Shen
E-mail address: zhi.liu@cqu.edu.cn (Z. Liu), rrtyijia@163.com (Y. T. Ren),

shenliyincqu@163.com (L. Y. Shen), 412506482@qq.com (X. Liao),
260119465@qq.com (X. X. Wei), wangjinhuan99@qq.com (J. H. Wang)
Journal Pre-proof
Analysis on the effectiveness of indicators for evaluating

urban carrying capacity: A popularity-suitability
perspective
Abstract
Cities globally are developing rapidly, and the contradictions between urban
development and urban carrying capacity (UCC) are increasingly prominent. Various
UCC evaluating indicators have been introduced as main instruments for investigating
the performance of UCC. Many indicators become very popular in literatures. However,
understanding on the effectiveness of these UCC indicators has drawn little attention in
previous studies. It is therefore not explicit whether those popular indicators proposed
in the literature are also suitable to communicate the UCC status practically, and vice
versa. This paper establishes a popularity - suitability bi-dimensional (PSBD) model to
discriminate and analyze the effectiveness of UCC evaluating indicators. Research data
from the Web of Science were collected, and 335 candidate UCC indicators addressed
in 48 studies were identified. In the PSBD model, popularity degree of individual
indicators is measured by its frequency employed in these studies. Suitability degree of
indicators is obtained by analyzing the information attached to a specific urban context,
which is collected through practical survey. Chongqing in China is referred as a case
city for demonstrating the application of PSBD model. The research finding reveals
that PSBD model is valid in examining the effectiveness of UCC indicators for a
specific urban area. The indicators selected through the application of PSBD model are
instrumental for understanding the status of UCC in the concerned cities, and can help
prevent urban areas from overloading, which further benefits the mission of sustainable
urban development.
Key words: urban carrying capacity (UCC), UCC evaluating indicators, popularity-
suitability bi-dimensional model (PSBD), indicator effectiveness, demonstration case
1
Journal Pre-proof
1 1 Introduction
2 The world has experienced an unprecedented urbanization process during the past
3 decades (Zhang et al., 2019), with the urbanization rate increased from 31.49% to 54.29%
4 during the period of 1955 to 2016 (World Bank Open Data, 2018). This urbanization
5 process is characterized by the large scale of migration from rural to urban areas, which
6 is particularly the case in many developing countries such as China (Ren et al., 2018).
7 For example, China has entered into a rapid urbanization era, with the urban population
8 boomed from 172.45 million in 1978 to 792.98 million in 2016 (National Bureau of
9 Statistics of China, 2017). Nevertheless, in line with the fast urbanization development,
10 various urban symptoms have emerged, such as ecological degradation, natural
11 resource depletion, and traffic congestion (Shuai et al., 2017; Feng et al., 2019; Shen et
12 al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019). These urban symptoms indicate that there is a conflict
13 between urban development and urban resource consumption. This conflict reflects to
14 a large extent the possible consequence of overloading demand for various urban
15 resources, which presents a potential threat to the sustainable urban development. It is
16 considered that urban areas can suffer the problem of overloading if we only pursue for
17 urbanization progress whilst ignoring the carrying capacity of urban areas (UCC) (Lane,
18 2010). In fact, the government and scholars worldwide have appreciated the importance
19 of incorporating UCC in implementing urban development programs. For example, in
20 early 1980s, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
21 (UNESCO) published a report on resource carrying capacity, which emphasizes the
22 importance of considering urban carrying capacity in national and regional
23 development (Fu and Hu, 2009). And the “National Plan on New-type Urbanization
24 (2014-2020)” published by the Central Government of China requests to incorporate
25 urban environment and resource carrying capacity when planning new urban districts.
26 In order to prevent urban carrying capacity from overloading, effective instrument
27 is needed to help measure and monitor the level of carrying capacity in concerned urban
28 areas. Evaluation indicator system is an essential tool not only to measure the
29 performance of UCC, but also to provide sufficient information for policy-making
30 towards sustainable urban development (Singh et al., 2012). However, as opined by
31 Shen and Zhou (2014), established indicator systems for sustainable urban development
32 seem to have limited application in practice. Shen et al. (2011) pointed out that there is
33 a pressing need to examine the effectiveness of indicators based on feedbacks obtained
34 from the practice. In fact, some UCC indicators are ineffective to be applied in practice.
2
Journal Pre-proof
1 For example, for those cities whose energy provision does not rely on the coal
2 production, the indicator “coal extraction intensity” is with little contribution for
3 measuring the UCC performance in these urban areas. Therefore, it appears that some
4 UCC indicators are not necessarily suitable for application although they are widely
5 promoted in academic research. On the other hand, some indicators may be suitable in
6 practice but they may not yet have been well circulated in research studies. To conclude,
7 indicators are effective only if they are valuable both in academic research and practical
8 application. Thus, it is necessary for analyzing the effectiveness of existing UCC
9 indicators from a popularity-suitability bi-dimensional perspective in a specific urban
10 area. Without this popularity-suitability perspective, the UCC indicators selected can
11 be inappropriate, and the accuracy of UCC assessment will be influenced accordingly.
12 In turn, the policy instruments designed may be improper and can lead to the sabotage
13 of urban sustainable development.
14 Previous studies have devoted efforts on the establishment of UCC evaluation
15 indicator systems. In the early stage, scholars mainly focus on the UCC evaluation by
16 considering single factors, such as population (Zinyama and Whitlow, 1986). Tsou et
17 al. (2017) focused on the single factor of land for analyzing UCC, which is opined as
18 urban land carrying capacity (ULCC). From a single factor of water environment, Wang
19 and Xu (2015) introduced a dynamic assessment model for evaluating water
20 environment carrying capacity (WECC) in China, and found that the level of WECC
21 distributes unevenly between regions. To solve the severe transportation problems in
22 Indonesian urban areas, Miharja and Sjafruddin (2017) developed a model to evaluate
23 the transport carrying capacity from supply-demand perspective. Research efforts have
24 also been paid to investigate the urban carrying capacity from other types of single
25 factors, such as ecological performance (Daneshvar et al., 2017), disasters prevention
26 and recovery (Wang et al., 2011), economic growth (Papageorgiou and Brotherton,
27 1999), cultural aspect (Seidl and Tisdell, 1999), and tourism development (Rahmani et
28 al., 2015).
29 Nevertheless, urban development is a complicated system which is determined by
30 multiple elements. Accordingly, UCC evaluation studies have presented an evolution
31 from single factor considered to multiple factors involved. For instance, Wei et al.
32 (2015) listed 59 measurable indicators to investigate the level of urban carrying
33 capacity in Beijing, across the dimensions of environmental impacts and natural
34 resources, infrastructure and urban services, institution, and society supporting systems.
3
Journal Pre-proof
1 Tian and Sun (2018) employed four dimensions of indicators to measure the carrying
2 capacity of urban agglomeration in Yangtze River Economic Belt in China. Yu (2002)
3 established an indicator system for evaluating the regional carrying capacity, which
4 includes the dimensions of economic foundation, population, resources and
5 environment, development potential, and interregional communication. By
6 incorporating seven determining factors, Oh et al. (2005) developed an indicator system
7 for examining the urban carrying capacity of Seoul.
8 There are other studies to evaluate UCC performance from the perspective of
9 pressure and support ability. For example, in studying the carrying capacity of Beijing,
10 Xu et al. (2010) introduced an evaluation model of urban relative carrying capacity by
11 considering both the pressure of human activities and the supportive ability of urban
12 ecological environment. Tehrani and Makhdoum (2013) proposed a loading index
13 model from pressure perspective to investigate UCC, for which 30 indicators from 8
14 dimensions of air, energy, green areas, noise, transport, waste, water and territorial
15 information are employed.
16 The above discussions show that although plenty of UCC indicator systems have
17 been introduced in previous research, the selection of evaluation indicators presents
18 subjectivity (Moreno-Pires and Fidélis, 2012). The indicators proposed in previous
19 UCC studies are generated overwhelmingly from literature review with little data
20 obtained from practice. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these indicators has not been
21 examined. Specifically, little attention is given on analyzing whether the proposed
22 indicators, particularly, those well-cited “popular” indicators in previous studies are
23 suitable for application, and whether those suitable indicators that can characterize the
24 UCC performance in practice are promoted in academic research. The analyzing results
25 of these two questions are focal to understand the effectiveness of indicators thoroughly
26 and measure the performance of UCC accurately.
27 The overlooking on the above two issues can lead to the barriers of indicators
28 selection and application. To fill in this research gap, this paper aims to establish a
29 popularity-suitability bi-dimensional (PSBD) model for analyzing the effectiveness of
30 UCC indicators. The contributions of this study lie in the following aspects: (a) a PSBD
31 model is developed by incorporating both theoretical and practical perspectives, which
32 is helpful in examining the effectiveness of indicators and mitigating the errors of
33 indicator selection; (b) existing UCC indicators are reviewed and their application
34 status in literature are analyzed. This makes a fundamental contribution towards the
4
Journal Pre-proof
1 UCC related research; and (c) a practical survey template is designed to investigate the
2 suitability of UCC indicators. Responsible departments related to UCC performance
3 are also identified to help include practitioners’ views in indicators selecting stage. The
4 research findings are expected to provide valuable information for researchers and
5 governors to better understand and evaluate the carrying capacity of various urban
6 contexts, and contribute to improving the sustainability of urbanization programs.
7 2 Methodology
8 This study adopts a set of research approaches for examining the effectiveness of
9 UCC indicators, and the research roadmap is designed as shown in Figure 1. The
10 roadmap includes four procedures, namely, development of a popularity-suitability bi-
11 dimensional (PSBD) model, calculation of indicators popularity degree based on
12 literature survey, design of a template for investigating the indicators suitability degree,
13 and a demonstration of PSBD model application.
14 Figure 1. The research roadmap for examining the effectiveness of UCC indicators
15 Firstly, a popularity-suitability bi-dimensional (PSBD) model is developed by

16 employing the McKinsey Matrix technique for investigating the effectiveness of UCC
17 indicators.
18 Secondly, comprehensive literature review is conducted to formulate a list of
19 candidate UCC indicators. These indicators are then processed through text mining
20 technique for measuring their popularity degree.
5
Journal Pre-proof
1 In the third research procedure, a practical survey template is designed to obtain

2 the suitability degree of candidate UCC indicators. In the survey, the respondents are
3 also invited to add any indicators that are suitable but not available in the candidate list.
4 In the final procedure, a demonstration is provided to show the application of
5 PSBD model. The city of Chongqing in China is selected as the case city, and the
6 effectiveness of UCC indicators in the context of Chongqing will be investigated and
7 analyzed. Based on the case discussion, suggestions and policy recommendations are
8 proposed on what types of UCC indicators should be selected and promoted in the
9 concerned urban context, and how to better adopt those effective indicators for
10 measuring UCC performance.
11 3 Development of PSBD model

12 The McKinsey Matrix was originally introduced to help develop business
13 strategies and evaluate the performance of a company from the two dimensions of
14 attractiveness and competitiveness. Based on the previous research, this matrix model
15 has been widely applied in other disciplines, such as product analysis (Proctor and
16 Hassard, 1990) and sustainable urbanization evaluation (Shen et al., 2017). In applying
17 the principle of McKinsey Matrix in this study, the two dimensions are defined as the
18 popularity and suitability degree of a specific UCC indicator respectively. And the
19 PSBD model is developed accordingly, as presented in Figure 2.
20 Figure 2. The popularity-suitability bi-dimensional model
21 In Figure 2, the popularity degree (P) of a specific indicator is measured by its
6
Journal Pre-proof
1 quotation frequency in literature, representing the indicator’s popularity from

2 theoretical perspective. The indicator with higher popularity is more circulated in
3 academic research. On the other hand, an indicator’s suitability degree (S) is defined to
4 describe its applicability from practical perspective. A suitable evaluation indicator is
5 expected to reflect and measure accurately the UCC performance in a specific
6 evaluation area. By cooperating both the value of P and S, candidate UCC indicators
7 can be clustered into nine cells, as shown in Figure 2. The indicators located in cell ①
8 are considered least valuable, as it indicates that these indicators present both low
9 suitability and popularity. And those indicators located in cell ⑨ are appreciated most
10 valuable and should be adopted, with considering their relatively high performances in
11 popularity and suitability.
12 The value of popularity degree (P) for a specific UCC indicator can be calculated
13 by the following equation (1) (Yi et al., 2013).
𝑁𝑖
14 𝑃𝑖 = 𝑚 ∗ 100 (1)
∑𝑖 = 1𝑁𝑖
15 Where i represents a specific UCC indicator (i=1, 2, …, m), Ni represents the

16 number of times that the indicator i has appeared in the retrieved studies. For those extra
17 indicators added by the practitioners, their popularity degree is defined as “0”,
18 indicating that these indicators are not available in the existing literature.
19 In referring to the suitability degree (S) of UCC indicators, the value will vary
20 between different cities, because cities are different in multiple aspects, for example,
21 resource endowments, economic structure, social circumstances. Indicator selection
22 corresponds to the specific status of concerned urban context enables the underlining
23 of city characters and the introducing of tailor-made policies. This viewpoint is echoed
24 by Valentin and Spangenberg (2000), suggesting that different indicators should be
25 adopted in different cities. Therefore, questionnaire survey is designed to be conducted
26 by inviting practitioners in a given city. Likert scale approach is employed in this case
27 to help practitioners judge the indicators’ suitability in the concerned city by using 5
28 grades, where 5 denotes for “most suitable”, 4 “suitable”, 3 “neutral”, 2 “less suitable”,
29 and 1 “not suitable”. Likert scale is a proven effective approach to scale responses in
30 conducting survey research (Maurer and Pierce, 1998).
31 The suitability degree (S) of a specific UCC indicator is obtained by equation (2)
32 (Chen et al., 2010).
5 𝑓𝑗
33 S = ∑j 𝜔𝑗 ∗ F (2)
7
Journal Pre-proof
1 Where j represents the scale value (j=1,2,3,4,5), ωj indicates the weight for the
2 scale j, fj denotes the number of respondents who judge the concerned indicator with
3 the grade j, and F refers to the total number of surveyed respondents. According to
4 previous study (Idrus and Newman, 2002), ωj can be calculated as follows.
𝑗
5 𝜛𝑗 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5, 𝑗 = 1,2,3,4,5
6 (3)
7 By applying the values generated from equation (1) and (2), a PSBD matrix model
8 for a specific city can be established, in which UCC indicators will be located in
9 different cells. The distribution of indicators in different cells indicate different
10 effectiveness of UCC indicators. Decision makers and researchers can therefore select
11 a set of effective UCC indicators from those cells where both popularity and suitability
12 are relatively high for better understanding UCC performance and formulating
13 appropriate policies.
14 4 Identification of the candidate UCC indicators
15 Urban carrying capacity was used as the keyword to retrieve relevant studies from
16 the Web of Science (WOS) database in the period of 2000 to 2018 for identifying
17 candidate UCC indicators. As a result, a total number of 1575 publications were
18 retrieved. A preliminary review was then processed to identify those publications
19 related to UCC evaluation by comprehending their abstracts and keywords.
20 Consequently, 258 studies were selected at this stage. However, part of these retrieved
21 studies may not provide useful information on UCC indicators. Therefore, further data
22 processing was conducted to identify those valuable and informative studies. The
23 filtering criteria are defined as follows:
24 (1) The literature is selected if the full paper is available and published on
25 international peer-reviewed journals (conference papers are then removed).
26 (2) The literature is selected only if the paper address UCC evaluating indicators.
27 Those studies only present evaluation methodologies or frameworks whilst do not
28 provide specific indicators are excluded.
29 By applying the above criteria, 48 studies were selected eventually, as listed in
30 Table 1. These 48 studies have addressed 335 different UCC indicators, which
31 formulate a candidate UCC evaluation indicator list. The details of these 335 indicators
32 are shown in Appendix.
8
Table 1. The 48 identified studies in addressing UCC indicators
Number of Number of
Literature Indicator dimensions in the concerned literature Literature Indicator dimensions in the concerned literature
indicators indicators
Natural resources supply, Ecological environment tolerance,

Oh et al. (2005) NA 7 Zhang (2016) 11
Economic and social conditions support
Zhang et al. Natural ecosystem, Socioeconomic development, Regeneration Population, Land resource, Water resource, Energy, Climate,
20 Hou et al. (2016) 31
(2006a) ability Ecology, Public service, Economy, Life and living, Environment
Zhang et al. Sustaining input, Imposed output, Destructive metabolism,
42 Zhu et al. (2016) NA 14
(2006b) Regenerative metabolism
Disaster monitoring and prediction ability, Engineering disaster
Chen et al. prevention ability, Non-engineering disaster prevention ability,
39 Xia et al. (2016) Land use suitability, Economic feasibility, 17
(2009) Disaster emergency rescue and recovery ability, Disaster emergency
support ability
Yang et al. Irankhahi et al.
Water, Land, Air, Eco-environment 10 Ecology, Social economy 28
(2010) (2017)
Chen et al. Tsou et al. Topographic condition, Land use type, Regional development
Assimilative capacity, Supportive capacity, Loading 23 7
(2011) (2017) intensity, Eco-environmental sensitivity
Zheng et al. Wang et al.
Environment, Society, Economy 19 Resource, Environment, Economy, Infrastructure 22
(2011) (2017)
Liu (2012) Land, Water, Transportation, Environment 12 Liu et al. (2017) NA 6
Protection of the atmosphere, Land, Urban environmental quality,
Jurado et al. Zakka et al.
Society, Economy, Ecology 24 Reducing human vulnerability, Biodiversity, Human settlement 18
(2012) (2017)
development, Water, Human consumption and production pattern
Urban construction, Agricultural production, Industrial Wang et al.
Shi et al. (2013) 21 NA 15
development, Ecological protection (2017)
Tehrani and Land form, Disaster vulnerability, Groundwater depth, Urban land Population, Dependency, Education, Employment situation,
Aroca-Jimenez
Makhdoum use, Population, Energy consumption, Material consumption, Waste 30 Healthcare services, Development and infrastructures, Buildings, 48
et al. (2017)
(2013) production, Air pollution, Traffic congestion Collective vulnerability
Munshi et al. Zhou and Zhou
NA 19 Environment, Energy, Economy 8
(2014) (2017)
9
Wang et al.
Li et al. (2014) Socio-economy, Environment, Transportation and location, Policy 18 Road length, Land use, Population density 11
(2017)
Ding et al. Huang et al.
Social economy, Tourist activity, Water quality 9 NA 12
(2015) (2018)
Environmental impacts and natural resources, Infrastructure and
Wei et al. Population migration and growth, Urbanization, Coal resources
urban services, Institutional carrying capacity, Society supporting 54 Liu et al. (2018) 16
(2015) mining, Water resources utilization
capacity
Chen et al. Ecological environment, Transport infrastructure, Factor market,
NA 5 Sun et al. (2018) 24
(2015) Industrial economy
Land social-developmental carrying capacity, Land ecological- Coastal disasters, Population pressure, Coastal pollution, Resource
Qian et al.
environmental carrying capacity, Land economic-productive 20 Han et al. (2018) exploitation, Resource support, Environmental support, Typical 33
(2015)
carrying capacity habitat support, Social support
Koop and
Tian and Sun Ecological environment, Comprehensive transportation, Factor
Leeuwen NA 12 32
(2018a) market
(2015)
Han et al. Tian and Sun Water resources, Environment, Water transportation, Land
Pressure layer, State layer, Response layer 18 39
(2015) (2018b) transportation, Population, Capital, Land, Economy, Industry
Sun et al. Zhang et al.
Socio-economy, Environment, 31 Water, Land, Atmospheric environment, Energy, Solid waste 18
(2015) (2018)
Deng et al. Lerario and Di
NA 7 Social field, Economic field, Environmental field 29
(2015) Turi (2018)
Jiang et al. Economic potential, Environmental construction, Social
NA 11 Zou et al. (2018) 21
(2016) development, Building performance
Wei et al. Yang et al.
Economy, Resource, Environment, Infrastructure, Transport 30 Water resources, Society, Economy, Water environment 16
(2016) (2019)
Ecological importance, Ecological sensitivity, Potential resource Urban construction, Industrial development, Agricultural
Peng et al.
supply, Remainder environmental capacity, Human activity effects, 14 Shi et al. (2019) production, Rural living, Green ecological, Geological hazards, 28
(2016)
Social development degree Land
10
Journal Pre-proof
1 As shown in Table 1, although the UCC indicators are proposed generally rather
2 than only targeted to a specific city, Chinese cities are predominantly selected as the
3 empirical demonstrations. The possible reason is that the increasing urban problems
4 induced by rapid urbanization in China are prominent during the study period. Such
5 situation has aroused urgent attention to the performance of UCC in China.
6 Table 1 further tells that the dimensions of UCC indicators are classified
7 differently among studies. To support further analysis, 335 candidate UCC indicators
8 are grouped into 19 dimensions, as shown in Appendix. These 19 dimensions are
9 classified based on the following two procedures. (a) all the dimensions proposed in
10 retrieved studies were analyzed and integrated, which provides valuable reference for
11 the identification of UCC dimensions; (b) UCC dimensions were identified by
12 considering the fundamental question of what carrying capacities are essential for
13 enabling urban sustainable development. In this way, 19 UCC dimensions are identified
14 and employed in this study, which correspond to the three essential aspects of
15 sustainable development principle, namely social, economic and environmental issues.
16 5 Popularity analysis on the candidate UCC indicators

17 By applying the frequency of each indicator in the retrieved studies in Table 1 to
18 equation (1), the popularity degree of all candidate UCC indicators can be obtained, as
19 listed in Appendix. It can be seen that the popularity degree of individual indicators
20 varies significantly. The highest popularity degree is 2.254, given to the indicator “per
21 capita GDP”. The lowest popularity degree is 0.102, shared by 151 indicators. In
22 addition, among the top 10 popular UCC indicators, 8 indicators belong to the
23 dimensions of environment and resource, indicating that emphasis has been given to
24 environmental issues instead of socioeconomic aspects during the surveyed period.
25 This finding is echoed by the fact that resource and environment conditions are the
26 determinants restricting the development of urban areas although substantial social-
27 economic progress has been achieved (Shuai et al., 2019).
28 Furthermore, the candidate UCC indicators are classified into three zones
29 according to their popularity degrees, namely, low popularity zone (PL), medium
30 popularity zone (PM), and high popularity zone (PH). The three popularity zones are
31 defined by the principle that each zone should have equal share of the value distance
32 between the minimum (0.102) and maximum (2.254) popularity degree. The details of
33 this classification principle are presented as follows:
11
Journal Pre-proof
1 [
𝑃𝐿 ∈ 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛,
𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛
3 ) = [0.102,0.717)
2 𝑃𝑀 ∈ [ 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 2(𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛)

3
,
3 )
= [0.717,1.434)
2(𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛)
3 𝑃𝐻 ∈ [ 3 ]
, 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 = [1.434, 2.254]
4 Accordingly, all the candidate UCC indicators can be assigned to a specific zone
5 in the popularity distribution diagram, as illustrated in Figure 3. The Figure presents
6 that there are only 2.99% of the total candidate UCC indicators located in high
7 popularity zone, whilst 91.34% UCC indicators located in PL zone, and 5.67% in PM
8 zone.
12
Figure 3. The popularity degree distribution between candidate UCC indicators
13
Journal Pre-proof
1 For further analysis, the popularity degree of individual indicators under each
2 UCC dimension is demonstrated in Figure 4. It’s interesting to note that indicators of
3 some dimensions are all located in the zone PL, for example, the dimension of Cultural
4 Aspect (CA). The indicators in other UCC dimensions present fluctuation in the values
5 of popularity degree. These findings indicate that UCC indicators are adopted very
6 differently in the literature. The reasons behind this are multiple. For example, different
7 studies have different perspectives for studying UCC, resulting that different UCC
8 indicators tend to be selected for addressing specific issues with different urban
9 contexts. Another possible explanation is that the focus of UCC evaluation may evolve
10 over time. For example, UCC indicators in the dimension of Disaster (DI) have been
11 increasingly emphasized in recent years, given the fact that environment deterioration
12 has become more severe and cities have become more vulnerable than ever before
13 (Chen et al., 2009).
14
Figure 4. Distributions of popularity degree between 19 dimensions of UCC indicators
Figure note: Energy (EN); Land (LA); Transport (TR); Infrastructure (IN); Water (WA); Waste Treatment (WT); Air Quality (AQ); Natural Condition (NC); Disaster (DI); Population (PO);
Education (ED); Social Service (SS); Living Quality (LQ); Economic Development (EC); Technology and Renovation (TE); Ecological Environment (EE); Public perception (PP); Cultural Aspect
(CA); Agriculture and Poultry (AP)
15
Journal Pre-proof
1 By referring to the data in Appendix, the number of indicators included in each

2 UCC dimension and their average popularity degree can be illustrated graphically, as
3 shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the number of indicators and the average
4 popularity degree in the dimensions of Land (LA) and Economic Development (EC)
5 are relatively high, indicating that indicators of these two dimensions have been well
6 adopted by researchers. The average popularity degree of Disaster (DI) dimension is
7 relatively low, although plenty of indicators are included in this dimension. The above
8 findings indicate that little emphasis has been given on examining urban disaster
9 carrying capacity in previous academic research, whilst disaster carrying capacity is
10 considered as an essential component of UCC, and should be investigated holistically
11 (Fiedrich et al., 2000). It’s also interesting to note that, although the number of
12 indicators in the dimensions of Water (WA), Waste Treatment (WT), Air Quality (AQ),
13 Population (PO) and Education (ED) is small, their average popularity degree per
14 dimension is relatively high. This is considered that indicators in these dimensions are
15 widely regarded essential in the literature. On the other hand, the data collection for
16 measuring the indicators in these dimensions is relatively easy to conduct. In other
17 words, the indicators with high data accessibility are commonly selected when
18 proposing UCC indicator systems in academic research.
19 Figure 5. The average popularity and number of indicators in 19 UCC dimensions
20 Figure note: Energy (EN); Land (LA); Transport (TR); Infrastructure (IN); Water (WA); Waste Treatment (WT);
21 Air Quality (AQ); Natural Condition (NC); Disaster (DI); Population (PO); Education (ED); Social Service (SS);
22 Living Quality (LQ); Economic Development (EC); Technology and Renovation (TE); Ecological Environment
23 (EE); Public perception (PP); Cultural Aspect (CA); Agriculture and Poultry (AP)
24
16
Journal Pre-proof
1 Figure 5 further demonstrates that there are only 5 indicators in the dimension of
2 Cultural Aspect (CA), 6 in Education (ED) and Technology and Renovation (TE), 7 in
3 Public Perception (PP), whilst the dimension of Land (LA) includes 40 indicators,
4 dimension of Economic Development (EC) includes 34 indicators. It seems that UCC
5 indicators in the dimensions of CA, ED, TE, and PP are not popular in terms of the
6 indicator numbers. These unpopular indicators actually present the “soft” elements of
7 UCC, and it appears that they have been overlooked to some extent in the literature.
8 Nevertheless, these “soft” elements should be addressed equally in establishing an
9 effective UCC indicator system, as they are considered vital for evaluating UCC
10 performance of an urban area (Li and Zhao, 2008).
11 According to the above popularity analysis, the consensus on what kinds of
12 indicators are most appropriate for evaluating UCC performance has not been
13 formulated in the literature, which leads to barriers in selecting indicators for
14 application. This implies the pressing need for an appropriate approach to help select
15 effective UCC indicators to investigate the carrying capacity status of urban contexts.
16 6 Practical survey template

17 A practical survey template is designed in this section to collect judgements and
18 views from practitioners about the suitability of UCC indicators. The following design
19 process is conducted to ensure the reliability and validity of survey results, as illustrated
20 in Figure 6.
21 Figure 6. The design process of practical survey template
22 During the design process, it is important to identify proper targeted respondents

23 to obtain suitability degree data of candidate UCC indicators. As opined by Sayer et al.
24 (2007) and Mascarenhas et al. (2015), respondents are expected to include those
25 stakeholders who are in the positions of choosing UCC indicators, or whose
26 responsibilities have influences on the UCC performance. Therefore, the respondents
27 to be identified should engage in those authority departments which are able to align
28 with the UCC dimensions and play key roles in improve UCC status. Based on the
29 above principle, official documents and development plans of cities were reviewed to
30 identify those departments which have influences on UCC performance. Consequently,
31 21 departments were identified for practical survey, as shown in Figure 7. These
17
Journal Pre-proof
1 departments are expected to ensure that the development of urban area will not exceed
2 its threshold of carrying capacity. Respondents from selected departments are
3 considered knowledgeable and experienced to provide effective judgements on
4 indicators suitability.
5 Figure 7. Departments influencing the performance of UCC
6 After the identification of respondents, a pilot survey is conducted to investigate

7 any revision that should be made to the draft survey template. Consequently, the
8 practical survey template including questionnaire survey and semi-structured interview
9 is formulated, as presented in Table 2. Respondents are also invited to add additional
10 indicators which are considered indispensable to evaluate the UCC performance but not
11 listed in the candidate indicator set.
12 Table 2. Practical survey template
Part Ⅰ Semi-structured interview
Q1: What are the characteristic resources in your city?

Q2: What are the characteristic industries in your city?
Q3: Are the carrying capacity of resources incorporated in planning and developing industries?
Q4: Are there any overloading problems in your city?
Q5: What indicators should be emphasized for evaluating carrying capacity in your city?
Part Ⅱ Questionnaire
Dimension Indicator Suitability degree
18
Journal Pre-proof
5 4 3 2 1
Energy consumption per unit of GDP
Energy
......
Per capita green space
Land
......
Per capita highway mileage
Transport
......
Number of hospital beds per 10000 people
Infrastructure
......
Per capita water supply
Water
......
...... ......
Culture The number of cultural and artistic venues
Others which are not included in the above list
1 7 A demonstration of PSBD model application
2 This section presents a demonstration of PSBD model application, the city of

3 Chongqing in China is selected as the case urban area.
4 7.1 Suitability measurement of UCC indicators in Chongqing
5 Chongqing is one of the four municipalities in China with the total land area of
6 82400 km2, and has been oriented by the Chinese Central government as the largest
7 central city in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River. By the year 2017, the
8 urbanization rate of Chongqing has reached 64.09%, with the total residents of 30.75
9 million and the urban residents of 19.71 million (Chongqing statistical yearbook, 2018).
10 On the other hand, the emergence of some urban symptoms triggered by the large
11 inflowing population has sent a warning message that UCC performance in Chongqing
12 is under the threats of overloading. Therefore, it is urgent to examine what indicators
13 can effectively investigate the UCC status and help enhance the UCC performance in
14 Chongqing.
15 The data for the suitability degree of 335 UCC indicators are investigated by using
16 the practical survey template of Table 2. 12 knowledgeable practitioners engaging in
17 different local authority departments were invited as the respondents of practical survey.
18 By applying the surveyed data to equation (2), the suitability degree of all UCC
19 indicators can be obtained. The calculation results in the context of Chongqing are
20 presented in Appendix.
19
Journal Pre-proof
1 7.2 Discussions on the application of PSBD model
2 The established PSBD model is able to incorporate the information from both
3 theoretical and practical perspectives for measuring the effectiveness of UCC indicators.
4 By applying the PSBD model to a specific urban context, different UCC indicators can
5 be positioned in different cells according to their popularity and suitability degree, as
6 shown in Figure 8. It appears that for an individual UCC indicator, its performance of
7 popularity and suitability may be significantly different. Therefore, four typical types
8 of indicators are proposed, namely Advocated indicators, Bubble indicators,
9 Overlooked indicators and Avoidable indicators. Decision makers and researchers can
10 select a set of proper UCC indicators through the effectiveness distribution in PSBD
11 model. For example, for those UCC indicators with both high popularity (P) and
12 suitability (S) in cell ⑨ , they are appreciated very effective and should be highly
13 advocated in the concerned city. For the indicators with both low P and S, positioned
14 in cell ①, they are regarded with little value to help understand the UCC conditions of
15 a given urban area and should be avoided to use. This result spells that PSBD model is
16 proven applicable and sound to reflect the effectiveness of individual UCC indicators.
17 Figure 8. The effectiveness of UCC indicators by applying PSBD model in the demo city
18 In referring to the demonstration city Chongqing, the effectiveness of individual

19 UCC indicators can be examined based on the popularity and suitability measurement
20 results shown in Appendix. Popularity degree (P) and suitability degree (S) for each
21 indicator are plotted on the quadrant diagram, as shown in Figure 8.
20
Journal Pre-proof
1 Figure 8 shows that, only 8 indicators are located in cell ⑨ , in which all the
2 indicators receive both high P and S, thus they are considered as the most effective
3 indicators to evaluate UCC performance in Chongqing. These 8 advocated indicators
4 are “per capita GDP”, “per capita water supply”, “per capita daily domestic water
5 consumption”, “population density”, “the ratio of sewage treated”, “energy
6 consumption per unit of GDP”, “green coverage rate of built up area” and “per capita
7 green space”. These indicators are not only widely appreciated from theoretical
8 perspective, but also suitable for evaluating the UCC status in Chongqing. Therefore,
9 these 8 indicators should be strongly advocated by the local government for conducting
10 UCC evaluation works. This finding further indicates that governors of Chongqing
11 should endeavor to improve the water and green space utilization level to ensure that
12 the increasing urban population and social economic activities does not exceed the
13 threshold of urban carrying capacity.
14 The indicators located in cell ⑧ present high P and medium S. There are two
15 indicators in this cell, namely, “per capita residential land” and “SO2 emission intensity
16 per unit of GDP”. This result is largely because the residential land is considered
17 sufficient to support the current population growth in Chongqing. According to the
18 official statistics, the per capita residential area in Chongqing was 1.64 m2 in the year
19 of 2017, which is more than two times than that in Beijing (0.67 m2) (National Bureau
20 of Statistics of China, 2017), therefore the indicator “per capita residential land” is not
21 that essential in the practical urban development in Chongqing. On the other hand, the
22 industrial SO2 emissions of Chongqing has decreased significantly from 0.711 million
23 tons in 2006 to 0.174 million tons in 2016 by implementing a series of policy
24 instruments (Chongqing statistical yearbook, 2018). Therefore, this indicator is
25 considered less essential for evaluating UCC performance in current development stage
26 of Chongqing. Nevertheless, the aforementioned two indicators may be more suitable
27 in other cities where there are scarce residential area and heavy industries.
28 It is interesting to note from figure 8 that most of the UCC indicators are allocated
29 to cell ① ， cell ② and cell ③ . The indicators located in cell ③ have high
30 suitability whilst are less popular in the literature. This implies that these indicators
31 have been overlooked in academic research, and should be well incorporated in
32 evaluating UCC performance of Chongqing. The typical indicators in cell ③ include
33 “proportion of research and development expenditures to GDP”, “the density of
34 drainage pipe in urban built-up areas” and “cultural investment”. They are considered
21
Journal Pre-proof
1 indispensable for reflecting the UCC status of Chongqing, although their popularity is
2 relatively low. One possible reason is the difficulty of data collection in conducting the
3 academic research. And as discussed previously in section 5, another reason is that
4 some “soft” components of UCC have been neglected to some extent in the literature.
5 However, these “soft” elements of UCC including technology, infrastructures and
6 culture are accountable to sustainable urban development (Uddin et al., 2017; Carrión-
7 Flores and Innes, 2010; Seidl and Tisdell, 1999). It is therefore considered that these
8 indicators should be further addressed both in practice and literature in investigating
9 the carrying capacity of Chongqing. Furthermore, decision-makers are suggested to
10 incorporate and emphasize these “soft” elements when formulating relevant policy
11 instruments for promoting sustainable urban development.
12 Figure 7 also spells that a large number of indicators are positioned in cell ①,
13 where both P and S are low. These indicators are the least effective for application in
14 Chongqing and are regarded as avoidable indicators. The possible reasons for this
15 phenomenon are multiple. For example, the indicator “annual direct economic loss
16 caused by storm” is considered ineffective to evaluate UCC performance in Chongqing.
17 However, it doesn’t imply that this indicator is not valuable, rather it suggests that this
18 indicator is not suitable for application in Chongqing as storm rarely happens in this
19 city. This kind of indicators is expected to present a better suitability in other urban
20 areas. For another example, indicator “emergency coordination” has poor applicability
21 in literature and practice because the definition and evaluation criteria of this indicator
22 is not clear, the data collection process is thus difficult. Therefore, the indicators in cell
23 ① should be avoided in investigating the UCC performance of Chongqing.
24 Cell ⑦ is an interesting location where indicators have high P but low S, and
25 these indicators can be called bubble indicators as they are over-circulated in the
26 literature but with little suitability in practice. In referring to Chongqing, none of the
27 UCC indicators is in cell ⑦ . This indicates that UCC indicators with high P are
28 considered relatively suitable by the surveyed practitioners in Chongqing, mostly
29 positioning in cell ⑨.
30 The results in Figure 8 and above discussions indicate that although numerous
31 UCC indicators have been introduced in previous studies, they present limited
32 effectiveness to investigate UCC performance in a specific city. Governors are expected
33 to promulgate some regulations to ensure the advocated indicators can be better adopted
34 and monitored, and researchers are suggested to filter out those bubble indicators and
22
Journal Pre-proof
1 avoidable indicators when establishing the indicator systems for investigating the status
2 of urban carrying capacity. Furthermore, the data collection process should be
3 developed to ensure the data accessibility, which can help the overlooked UCC
4 indicators be better adopted in academic research.
5 8 Conclusion
6 The practice of sustainable development needs the identification of effective

7 indicators for assisting researchers and policy makers to understand the UCC conditions
8 of the concerned urban area, address the emerging overloading problems, and formulate
9 appropriate policy instruments. This paper suggests that it is insufficient and
10 inappropriate to select indicators only according to their popularity in the literature. The
11 suitability of indicators to a specific urban context must be incorporated. A popularity-
12 suitability bi-dimensional (PSBD) model is therefore developed to examine the
13 effectiveness of existing UCC indicators. The demonstration of applying the PSBD
14 model in Chongqing reveals that the model is valid and instrumental to help identify
15 the effective UCC indicators for the concerned urban area. The findings signify that the
16 most effective UCC indicators for Chongqing are “per capita GDP”, “per capita water
17 supply”, “per capita daily domestic water consumption”, “population density”, “the
18 ratio of sewage treated”, “energy consumption per unit of GDP”, “green coverage rate
19 of built up area” and “per capita green space”. These indicators should be advocated by
20 Chongqing government to measure the UCC status effectively and help monitor the
21 urban development does not exceed its threshold.
22 This study reviews holistically the existing UCC indicators, which provides a
23 valuable reference towards further UCC related studies. The PSBD model is an
24 innovative approach to mitigate the barriers in selecting effective indicators for
25 application, and help understand the UCC status of specific urban context. Appropriate
26 policy instruments can be formulated accordingly to guide urban development towards
27 better sustainability. Furthermore, the PSBD model also provides a generic
28 methodology which can be applied in other research fields for examining the
29 effectiveness of indicators and selecting the most appropriate ones.
30 With the limitation of practical survey, this study only presents a single city of
31 Chongqing for the demonstration. Further studies are recommended to apply the PSBD
32 model in different urban areas and conduct comparative analysis on the differences of
33 effective indicators between various urban contexts. Tailor-made policy
23
Journal Pre-proof
1 recommendations can therefore be developed and implemented by incorporating these

2 differences. Furthermore, it is envisaged that the list of candidate UCC indicators can
3 be updated when more studies are available.
4 Acknowledgements
5 This research work was supported by National Social Science Foundation of China,
6 grant number 17ZDA062, 15AZDO25 and 15BJY038.
7
8 References
9 Aroca-Jimenez, E., Bodoque, J. M., Garcia, J. A., Diez-Herrero, A., 2017. Construction of an
10 integrated social vulnerability index in urban areas prone to flash flooding. Natural Hazards
11 & Earth System Sciences, 17(9), 1541-1557. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2016-408
12 Chongqing statistical yearbook (2018), available at: http://www.cqtj.gov.cn/
13 Chinese Medical Products Administration (2017), available at:
14 http://www.nmpa.gov.cn/WS04/CL2042/
15 Chen, Y., Ya-Li, C., Rong, R., Xiang, D., 2015. Evaluation on water resources carrying capacity of
16 Changchun-Jilin region. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering (2). Available at:
17 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-DXSG201502007.htm
18 Chen, J. P., Zeng, M., Duan, Y. J., 2011. Regional carrying capacity evaluation and prediction based
19 on GIS in the Yangtze River Delta, China. International Journal of Geographical Information
20 Science, 25(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2010.495075
21 Carrión-Flores, C. E., Innes, R., 2010. Environmental innovation and environmental performance.
22 Journal of Environmental Economics & Management, 59(1), 27-42.
23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.05.003
24 Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E., Riley, D. R., 2010. Sustainable performance criteria for construction
25 method selection in concrete buildings. Automation in Construction, 19(2), 235-244.
26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.004
27 Chen, G.H., Tao, L., Zhang, H.W., 2009. Study on the methodology for evaluating urban and
28 regional disaster carrying capacity and its application. Safety Science, 47(1), 50-58.
29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.12.002
30 Daneshvar, M. R. M., Khatami, F., Zahed, F., 2017. Ecological carrying capacity of public green
31 spaces as a sustainability index of urban population: A case study of Mashhad city in Iran.
32 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3(3), 1161-1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-
33 017-0364-2
24
Journal Pre-proof
1 Deng, Y., Liu, S. H., Cai, J. M., Lu, X., Nielsen, C. P., 2015. Spatial pattern and its evolution of
2 Chinese provincial population: Methods and empirical study. Journal of Geographical
3 Sciences, 25(12), 1507-1520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-015-1248-x
4 Ding, L., Chen, K. L., Cheng, S. G., Wang, X., 2015. Water ecological carrying capacity of urban
5 lake in the context or rapid urbanization: A case study of East Lake in Wuhan. Physics and
6 Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 89, 104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.08.004
7 Feng, C., Huang, J. B., & Wang, M., 2019. The sustainability of China’s metal industries: features,
8 challenges and future focuses. Resources Policy, 60, 215-224.
9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.12.006
10 Fu, H., Hu, Y., 2009. A review on the urban comprehensive carrying capacity. Urban Problems, 5,
11 27-31. (In Chinese). https://doi.org/10.13239/j.bjsshkxy.cswt.2009.05.009
12 Fiedrich, F., Gehbauer, F., Rickers, U., 2000. Optimized resource allocation for emergency response
13 after earthquake disasters. Safety science, 35(1-3), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-
14 7535(00)00021-7
15 Han, Y., Wei, F., Ye, G., Yang, S., Ma, P., Hu, W., 2018. A study on evaluation the marine carrying
16 capacity in Guangxi province, China. Marine Policy, 91, 66-74.
17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.003
18 Huang, T., Yu, Y., Wei, Y., Wang, H., Huang, W., Chen, X., 2018. Spatial-seasonal characteristics
19 and critical impact factors of pm2.5 concentration in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban
20 agglomeration. PLoS ONE. 13(9), e0201364. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201364
21 Han, B., Liu, H., Wang, R., 2015. Urban ecological security assessment for cities in the Beijing-
22 Tianjin-Hebei metropolitan region based on fuzzy and entropy methods. Ecological Modelling,
23 318 (1), 217-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.12.015
24 Irankhahi, M., Jozi, S. A., Farshchi, P., Shariat, S. M., Liaghati, H., 2017. Combination of GISFM
25 and TOPSIS to evaluation of urban environment carrying capacity (case study: Shemiran city,
26 Iran). International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 14(6), 1317-1332.
27 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1243-0
28 Idrus, A. B., Newman, J. B., 2002. Construction related factors influencing the choice of concrete
29 floor systems. Construction Management & Economics, 20(1), 13-19.
30 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190110101218
31 Jiang, P., Cheng, Q., Gong, Y., Wang, L., Chen, D., 2016. Using urban development boundaries to
32 constrain uncontrolled urban sprawl in China. Annals of the American Association of
33 Geographers, 106(6), 1321-1343. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1198213
34 Hou, K., Zhou, J., Li, X., Ge, S., 2016. Study on GIS visualization in evaluation of the human living
25
Journal Pre-proof
1 environment in Shenyang-Dalian urban agglomeration. Scientifica, 2016, 1-10.

2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7462832
3 Koop, S. H. A., Van Leeuwen, C. J., 2015. Assessment of the sustainability of water resources
4 management: A critical review of the city blueprint approach. Water Resources Management,
5 29(15), 5649-5670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1139-z
6 Lerario, A., Di Turi, S., 2018. Sustainable urban tourism: Reflections on the need for building-
7 related indicators. Sustainability, 10(6), 1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061981
8 Liu, X. Q., Pei, T., Zhou, C. H., Du, Y. Y., Ma, T., Xie, C. J., Xu, J., 2018. A systems dynamic
9 model of a coal-based city with multiple adaptive scenarios: A case study of Ordos, China.
10 Science China Earth Sciences, 61(3), 302-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-016-9077-5
11 Liu, X., Li, G., Ma, S. F., Tian, J. F., Liu, L. S., Zhu, W. L., 2017. Urban road traffic scale analysis
12 from the perspective of atmospheric environmental indicators in Tianjin, China. Ecological
13 Indicators, 82, 392-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.013
14 Li, G., Fang, C., Pang, B., 2014. Quantitative measuring and influencing mechanism of urban and
15 rural land intensive use in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 24(5), 858–874.
16 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-014-1125-z
17 Liu, H., 2012. Comprehensive carrying capacity of the urban agglomeration in the Yangtze River
18 Delta, China. Habitat International, 36(4), 462-470.
19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.05.003
20 Lane, M., 2010. The carrying capacity imperative: Assessing regional carrying capacity
21 methodologies for sustainable land-use planning. Land Use Policy, 27(4), 1038-1045.
22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.01.006
23 Li, D. X., Zhao, F. Q., 2008. A research on the structure model and mutual mechanism of
24 comprehensive urban carrying capacity. Urban Studies, 15(6), 37-42. (In Chinese)
25 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-3862.2008.06.008
26 Miharja, M., Sjafruddin, A. H., 2017. Urban development control based on transportation carrying
27 capacity. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 70(1), 12-19.
28 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/70/1/012019
29 Mascarenhas, A., Nunes, L. M., Ramos, T. B., 2015. Selection of sustainability indicators for
30 planning: Combining stakeholders’ participation and data reduction techniques. Journal of
31 Cleaner Production, 92, 295-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.005
32 Munshi, T., Zuidgeest, M., Brussel, M., Maarseveen, M.V., 2014. Logistic regression and cellular
33 automata-based modelling of retail, commercial and residential development in the city of
34 Ahmedabad, India. Cities, 39, 68-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.02.007
26
Journal Pre-proof
1 Moreno-Pires, S., Fidélis, T., 2012. A proposal to explore the role of sustainability indicators in
2 local governance contexts: The case of Palmela, Portugal. Ecological Indicators, 23(4), 608-
3 615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.003
4 Maurer, T. J., Pierce, H. R., 1998. A comparison of Likert Scale and traditional measures of self-
5 efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 324-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
6 9010.83.2.324
7 National Bureau of Statistics of China (2017), available at: http://www.stats.gov.cn/
8 Jurado, E. N., Tejada, M. T., García, F. A., González, J. C., Macías, R. C., Peña, J. D., ... & Gutiérrez,
9 O. M., 2012. Carrying capacity assessment for tourist destinations. Methodology for the
10 creation of synthetic indicators applied in a coastal area. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1337-
11 1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.017
12 Oh, K., Jeong, Y., Lee, D., Lee, W., Choi, J., 2005. Determining development density using the
13 urban carrying capacity assessment system. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(1), 1-15.
14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.06.002
15 Peng, J., Du, Y., Liu, Y., Hu, X., 2016. How to assess urban development potential in mountain
16 areas? An approach of ecological carrying capacity in the view of coupled human and natural
17 systems. Ecological Indicators, 60, 1017-1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.008
18 Papageorgiou, K., Brotherton, I., 1999. A management planning framework based on ecological,
19 perceptual and economic carrying capacity: The case study of Vikos-Aoos National Park,
20 Greece. Journal of Environmental Management, 56(4), 271-284.
21 https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0285
22 Proctor, R. A., Hassard, J. S., 1990. Towards a new model for product portfolio analysis.
23 Management Decision, 28(3), 14-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749010141834
24 Qian, Y., Tang, L., Qiu, Q., Xu, T., Liao, J., 2015. A comparative analysis on assessment of land
25 carrying capacity with ecological footprint analysis and index system method. PLoS One, 10
26 (6), e0130315. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130315
27 Ren, Y., Li, H., Shen, L., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, J., 2018. What is the efficiency of fast
28 urbanization? A China study. Sustainability, 10(9), 3180. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093180
29 Rahmani, A., Fakhraee, A., Karami, S., Kamari, Z., 2015. A quantitative approach to estimating
30 carrying capacity in determining the ecological capability of urban tourism areas (Case study:
31 Eram Boulevard of Hamadan city). Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(7), 807-821.
32 https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2014.934702
33 Shuai, C., Chen, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y., & Tan, Y., 2019. A three-step strategy for decoupling
34 economic growth from carbon emission: empirical evidences from 133 countries. Science of
27
Journal Pre-proof
1 The Total Environment, 646, 524-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.045

2 Shi, Y., Shi, S., Wang, H., 2019. Reconsideration of the methodology for estimation of land
3 population carrying capacity in Shanghai metropolis. Science of The Total Environment, 652,
4 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.210
5 Shen, L., Ren, Y., Xiong, N., Li, H., Chen, Y., 2018. Why small towns can not share the benefits of
6 urbanization in China? Journal of cleaner production, 174, 728-738.
7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.150
8 Sun, C., Chen, L., Tian, Y., 2018. Study on the urban state carrying capacity for unbalanced
9 sustainable development regions: Evidence from the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Ecological
10 Indicators, 89, 150-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.011
11 Shuai, C., Shen, L., Jiao, L., Wu, Y., & Tan, Y., 2017. Identifying key impact factors on carbon
12 emission: Evidences from panel and time-series data of 125 countries from 1990 to 2011.
13 Applied Energy, 187, 310-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.029
14 Shen, L., Shuai, C., Jiao, L., Tan, Y., & Song, X., 2017. Dynamic sustainability performance during
15 urbanization process between BRICS countries. Habitat International, 60, 19-33.
17 Sun, C. Z., Zhang, K. L., Zou, W., Li, B., Qin, X. H., 2015. Assessment and evolution of the
18 sustainable development ability of human–ocean systems in coastal regions of China.
19 Sustainability, 7(8), 10399–10427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810399
20 Shen, L., Zhou, J., 2014. Examining the effectiveness of indicators for guiding sustainable
21 urbanization in China. Habitat International, 44, 111-120.
23 Shi, Y. S., Wang, H. F., Yin, C. Y., 2013. Evaluation method of urban land population carrying
24 capacity based on GIS-A case of Shanghai, China. Computers Environment & Urban Systems,
25 39(3), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.02.002
26 Shen, L. Y., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N., Zhang, X., 2011. The application of urban sustainability
27 indicators – A comparison between various practices. Habitat International, 35(1), 17-29.
29 Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., Dikshit, A. K., 2012. An overview of sustainability
30 assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281-299.
31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.007
32 Sayer, J., Campbell, B., Petheram, L., Aldrich, M., Perez, M. R., Endamana, D., … & Burgess,
33 N.,2007. Assessing environment and development outcomes in conservation Landscapes.
34 Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(9), 2677-2694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9079-9
28
Journal Pre-proof
1 Seidl, I., Tisdell, C. A., 1999. Carrying capacity reconsidered: From Malthus' population theory to
2 cultural carrying capacity. Ecological Economics, 31(3), 395-408.
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00063-4
4 Tian, Y., Sun, C., 2018a. A spatial differentiation study on comprehensive carrying capacity of the
5 urban agglomeration in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Regional Science and Urban
6 Economics, 68, 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2017.10.014
7 Tian, Y., Sun, C., 2018b. Comprehensive carrying capacity, economic growth and the sustainable
8 development of urban areas: A case study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Journal of
9 cleaner production, 195, 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.262
10 Tsou, J., Gao, Y., Zhang, Y., Genyun, S., Ren, J., Li, Y., 2017. Evaluating urban land carrying
11 capacity based on the ecological sensitivity analysis: A case study, in Hangzhou, China.
12 Remote Sensing, 9(6), 529. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9060529
13 Tehrani, N. A., Makhdoum, M. F., 2013. Implementing a spatial model of Urban Carrying Capacity
14 Load Number (UCCLN) to monitor the environmental loads of urban ecosystems. Case study:
15 Tehran metropolis. Ecological Indicators, 32, 197-211.
17 Uddin, G. A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., Gow, J., 2017. Ecological footprint and real income: Panel
18 data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77, 166-175.
20 Valentin, A., Spangenberg, J. H., 2000. A guide to community sustainability indicators.
21 Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(3), 381-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-
22 9255(00)00049-4
23 World Bank Open data (2018), available at: https://data.worldbank.org.cn/
24 Wang, J., Shen, L., Ren, Y., Ochoa, J. J., Guo, Z., Yan, H., & Wu, Z. 2019. A lessons mining system
25 for searching references to support decision making towards sustainable urbanization. Journal
26 of cleaner production, 209, 451-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.244
27 Wang, S. X., Shang, M., Zhou, Y., Liu, W. L., Wang, L. T., 2017. Resources and environmental
28 carrying capacity using RS and GIS. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 26(6).
29 https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/70927
30 Wang, C., Hou, Y., Xue, Y., 2017. Water resources carrying capacity of wetlands in Beijing:
31 Analysis of policy optimization for urban wetland water resources management. Journal of
32 Cleaner Production, 161, 1180-1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.204
33 Wang, F., Peng, Y., Jiang, C., 2017. Inﬂuence of road patterns on PM2.5 concentrations and the
34 available solutions: The case of Beijing city, China. Sustainability, 9 (2), 217.
29
Journal Pre-proof
1 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020217
2 Wei, Y., Huang, C., Li, J., Xie, L., 2016. An evaluation model for urban carrying capacity: A case
3 study of China's mega-cities. Habitat International, 53, 87-96.
5 Wang, T., Xu, S., 2015. Dynamic successive assessment method of water environment carrying
6 capacity and its application. Ecological Indicators, 52, 134-146.
8 Wei, Y., Huang, C., Lam, P., Sha, Y., Feng, Y., 2015. Using urban-carrying capacity as a benchmark
9 for sustainable urban development: An empirical study of Beijing. Sustainability, 7(3), 3244–
10 3268. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7033244
11 Wang, W., Tian, J., Wang, Z. T., Guo, X. D., Ma, D. H., 2011. Evaluation method of urban
12 comprehensive disaster-carrying capability based on fractal theory. Applied Mechanics and
13 Materials, 90, 3155-3160. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.90-93.3155
14 Xia, F., Shen, Y., Yan, J., Bao, H. X., 2016. On the potential of urban three-dimensional space
15 development: The case of Liuzhou, China. Habitat International, 51, 48-58.
17 Xu, L. Y., Kang, P., Wei, J. J., 2010. Evaluation of urban ecological carrying capacity: A case study
18 of Beijing, China. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2, 1873-1880.
19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2010.10.199
20 Yang, Z., Song, J., Cheng, D., Xia, J., Li, Q., Ahamad, M. I., 2019. Comprehensive evaluation and
21 scenario simulation for the water resources carrying capacity in Xi'an city, China. Journal of
22 Environmental Management, 230, 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.085
23 Yi, X. H., Cheng, J. H., Chen, J., 2013. A review on the evaluation indicator system of ecological
24 civilization. Statistics and Decision, (18), 32-36. (In Chinese)
25 https://doi.org/10.13546/j.cnki.tjyjc.2013.18.017
26 Yang, Z. F., Su, M. R., Zhang, B., Zhang, Y., Hu, T. L., 2010. Limiting factor analysis and
27 regulation for urban ecosystems-A case study of Ningbo, China. Communications in Nonlinear
28 Science and Numerical Simulation, 15(9), 2701-2709.
29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.09.027
30 Yu, D. L., Mao, H. Y., 2002. Regional carrying capacity: case studies of Bohai Rim area. Journal
31 of Geographical Sciences, 12(2), 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02837472
32 Zhang, M., Liu, Y., Wu, J., Wang, T., 2018. Index system of urban resource and environment
33 carrying capacity based on ecological civilization. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
34 68, 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.11.002
30
Journal Pre-proof
1 Zhang, Y., Shen, L., Ren, Y., Wang, J., Liu, Z., & Yan, H. 2019. How fire safety management
2 attended during the urbanization process in China? Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117686.
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117686
4 Zou, T., Su, Y. K., Wang, Y. W., 2018. Research on the hybrid ANP-FCE approach of urban
5 community sustainable construction problem. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2018,
6 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8572498
7 Zakka, S. D., Permana, A. S., Majid, M. R., Danladi, A., Bako, P. E., 2017. Urban greenery a
8 pathway to environmental sustainability in Sub Saharan Africa: A case of Northern Nigeria
9 cities. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 4(3), 180-189.
10 https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v4.n3.211
11 Zhou, Y., Zhou, J., 2017. Urban atmospheric environmental capacity and atmospheric
12 environmental carrying capacity constrained by GDP–PM2.5. Ecological Indicators, 73, 637-
13 652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.015
14 Zhang, L., 2016. Empirical analysis of regional economic coordinated development based on the
15 economic network structure. International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing, 9(5),
16 293-302. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijgdc.2016.9.5.25
17 Zhu, X., Gao, W., Zhou, N., Kammen, D. M., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y., et al., 2016. The inhabited
18 environment, infrastructure development and advanced urbanization in China’s Yangtze River
19 Delta Region. Environmental Research Letters, 11(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
20 9326/11/12/124020
21 Zheng, J., Atkinson-Palombo, C., McCahill, C., O'Hara, R., Garrick, N. W., 2011. Quantifying the
22 Economic Domain of Transportation Sustainability. Transportation Research Record, 2242(1),
23 19-28. https://doi.org/10.3141/2242-03
24 Zhang, Y., Yang, Z.F., Yu, X.Y., 2006a. Measurement and evaluation of interactions in complex
25 urban ecosystem. Ecological Modelling, 196(1-2), 77-89.
26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.02.001
27 Zhang, Y., Yang, Z.F., Li, W., 2006b. Analyses of urban ecosystem based on information entropy.
28 Ecological Modelling, 197(1-2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.02.032
29 Zinyama, L., Whitlow, R., 1986. Changing patterns of population distribution in Zimbabwe.
30 GeoJournal, 13(4), 365-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00224593
31
Journal Pre-proof
1 Appendix
2 UCC Indicators popularity and suitability calculation results
Location
Popularity Suitability
Dimension Indicator in PSBD
(P) (S)
model
Energy consumption per unit of GDP 1.537 0.300 ⑨
Gas consumption per unit of GDP 0.410 0.278 ③
Gas consumption rate 0.205 0.128 ①
Electricity consumption per unit of GDP 0.615 0.283 ③
Electricity resources 0.307 0.206 ②
Electricity consumption rate 0.205 0.150 ②
Proportion of coal to total energy consumption 0.102 0.178 ②
Energy Energy consumption elasticity coefficient 0.205 0.239 ③
(EN) Natural gas reserves 0.410 0.178 ②
Per capita gas supply 0.102 0.239 ③
Gas access rate 0.205 0.183 ②
Coal reserves 0.102 0.128 ①
Annual coal extraction volume 0.102 0.106 ①
Coal extraction intensity 0.307 0.122 ①
Per capita nighttime lights 0.102 0.078 ①
Output of offshore crude oil 0.205 0.072 ①
Per capita green space 1.434 0.267 ⑨
Total construction area 1.230 0.306 ⑥
Total green space area 0.512 0.261 ③
Green coverage rate of built up area 1.434 0.278 ⑨
Output rate of unit construction land 0.102 0.089 ①
Per capita development land 0.410 0.117 ①
Per capita residential land 1.537 0.300 ⑧
Land subsidence 0.307 0.089 ①
Suitability of natural foundation for construction 0.205 0.100 ①
Land Per capita cultivated land 1.127 0.283 ⑥
(LA) Soil environmental quality 0.205 0.139 ①
Output value of per unit agricultural land 0.205 0.089 ①
Proportion of industrial land 0.205 0.228 ②
Value-added of per unit industrial land 0.205 0.089 ①
Land use type 0.512 0.094 ①
Per capita administration land 0.410 0.100 ①
Irrigation area 0.307 0.083 ①
Build-up area 0.512 0.178 ②
Land requirement per 10000 Yuan GDP 0.102 0.072 ①
Utility of land investment 0.102 0.083 ①
32
Journal Pre-proof
Utility of land production 0.102 0.089 ①

Total reclamation area 0.205 0.167 ②
Total coastal land area 0.102 0.089 ①
Per capita wetland 0.410 0.106 ①
Per capita educational land 0.102 0.261 ③
Per capita sanitary land 0.102 0.256 ③
Per capita transportation network land 0.307 0.250 ③
Total transportation area 0.307 0.217 ②
Per capita urban land 0.410 0.278 ③
Percentage of urban non-construction area 0.102 0.106 ①
Urban expansion rate 0.102 0.089 ①
Farmland irrigation quota 0.102 0.089 ①
Annual growth rate of regulated places 0.102 0.089 ①
Percentage of usable undeveloped land 0.307 0.089 ①
Land area for special use 0.102 0.089 ①
The area of fast-growing plantations of low-yield forest 0.102 0.089 ①
Floor area ratio 0.512 0.211 ②
Coverage of city forest 1.025 0.267 ⑥
Proportion of grassland 0.205 0.222 ②
Areas suited to population evacuation 0.102 0.094 ①
Total traffic volume at peak hour 0.102 0.250 ③
Traffic congestion 0.307 0.200 ②
Per capita urban road area 1.332 0.306 ⑥
Per capita highway mileage 0.615 0.311 ③
Number of buses per 10000 people 0.410 0.222 ②
Water transport freight traffic 0.307 0.178 ②
Water transportation passenger traffic volume 0.307 0.183 ②
Railway freight traffic 0.307 0.161 ②
Railway transportation passenger traffic volume 0.307 0.178 ②
Highway freight traffic 0.205 0.172 ②
Transport
Highway transportation passenger traffic volume 0.205 0.189 ②
(TR)
Number of private cars per 10000 people 0.512 0.200 ②
Number of berths 0.205 0.094 ①
Number of fishing boats 0.102 0.083 ①
Highway density 0.615 0.306 ③
Public transportation ridership rate 0.205 0.128 ①
Resident's average commuting time 0.307 0.194 ②
Social parking rate 0.102 0.161 ②
Railway line density 0.410 0.206 ②
Passenger turnover 0.102 0.106 ①
Tourism-related transport 0.102 0.089 ①
Infrastructure Crowding ratio 0.102 0.094 ①
33
Journal Pre-proof
(IN) Number of hospital beds per 10000 people 0.820 0.250 ⑥

Degree of completeness of basic facilities 0.205 0.211 ②
The density of drainage pipe in urban built-up areas 0.205 0.283 ③
Number of libraries per 10000 people 0.307 0.194 ②
Number of museums per 10000 people 0.102 0.194 ②
The coverage rate of free open sports facilities within 1000 meters
0.102 0.161 ②
of residential areas
Visual impact of facilities and infrastructures 0.102 0.083 ①
Average number of daily guests in the hotel 0.102 0.100 ①
Number of Internet per 10000 people 0.410 0.117 ①
Number of mobile phone users per 10000 people 0.205 0.106 ①
Number of fixed telephone users per 10000 people 0.102 0.100 ①
Access rate of cable TV 0.102 0.111 ①
Informatization degree 0.102 0.183 ②
Number of health centers 0.410 0.211 ②
Number of tourist facilities providing variety of experiences 0.205 0.128 ①
Infrastructure investment per unit area 0.205 0.278 ③
Per capita water supply 2.049 0.311 ⑨
Water security importance 0.205 0.139 ①
Groundwater depth 0.307 0.094 ①
Per capita daily domestic water consumption 2.049 0.283 ⑨
Water consumption rate 0.410 0.133 ①
Water quality compliance rate of drinking water source 0.410 0.133 ①
Proportion of rivers worse than Grade V 0.102 0.100 ①
Desalination of seawater volume 0.102 0.089 ①
Ecological water consumption rate 0.307 0.167 ②
Water
Proportion of reclaimed water to total water supply 0.102 0.089 ①
(WA)
Rate of industrial waste water up to the discharge standards 0.615 0.172 ②
Coastal capita freshwater 0.102 0.089 ①
Annual groundwater extraction 0.205 0.111 ①
Water access rate 0.205 0.206 ②
Rate of reusable water reused 0.615 0.094 ①
Remainder water environmental capacity 0.102 0.206 ②
Proportion of surface water 0.102 0.106 ①
Rate of water supply to water demand 0.102 0.244 ③
Industrial water consumption 0.205 0.250 ③
Dioxin concentration 0.102 0.206 ②
Waste recycling rate 0.717 0.111 ④
Waste
Waste production 0.615 0.211 ②
Treatment
Waste production rate 0.205 0.089 ①
(WT)
The ratio of sewage treated 1.639 0.278 ⑨
Harmless disposal rate of municipal solid waste 1.025 0.272 ⑥
34
Journal Pre-proof
Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste 0.922 0.267 ⑥

COD concentration 0.410 0.133 ①
BOD concentration 0.307 0.133 ①
TN concentration 0.102 0.117 ①
TP concentration 0.102 0.117 ①
Industrial waste water discharged volume 1.230 0.239 ⑥
Pollution control investment 0.205 0.261 ③
The ratio of living garbage treated 0.102 0.178 ②
Synthetic index of environmental pollution 0.205 0.089 ①
Proportion of treated dangerous waste materials 0.102 0.089 ①
Industrial solid waste volume 0.205 0.206 ②
The ratio of low-impact disposal of night soil and garbage 0.102 0.089 ①
Output value of products made from the wastewater, waste gas,
0.102 0.089 ①
and solid wastes
PSI (Pollutant Standards Index) 0.205 0.239 ③
Total emission of industrial waste gas 0.922 0.261 ⑥
SO2 emission intensity per unit of GDP 1.434 0.250 ⑧
Inhalable particle concentration 0.615 0.256 ③
PM10 emission intensity per unit of GDP 0.307 0.156 ②
The ratio of good ambient air quality 0.615 0.244 ③
CO emission intensity per unit of GDP 0.410 0.217 ②
Air Quality
Polluted days of a year 0.102 0.222 ②
(AQ)
Industrial CO2 emissions per 10000 Yuan GDP 0.410 0.217 ②
Remainder atmospheric environmental capacity 0.102 0.206 ②
Proportion of motor vehicle exhaust that meets the local discharge
0.205 0.106 ①
standards
NOx emissions intensity per unit of GDP 0.307 0.161 ②
Discharged volume of VOC 0.102 0.100 ①
Total emission of industrial dust 0.307 0.200 ②
Elevation 0.410 0.089 ①
Slope 0.512 0.167 ②
Terrain and topography 0.102 0.144 ①
Relief degree of land surface 0.205 0.117 ①
Wind velocity 0.102 0.206 ②
Natural
Precipitation 0.410 0.189 ②
Conditions
Hydrogeology 0.102 0.083 ①
(NC)
Annual sunshine duration 0.102 0.178 ②
Relative humidity 0.102 0.117 ①
Degree of landscape fragmentation 0.102 0.094 ①
Degree of landscape divisiveness 0.205 0.100 ①
Mean annual temperature 0.205 0.172 ②
Disaster Earthquake vulnerability 0.410 0.161 ②
35
Journal Pre-proof
(DI) Flood vulnerability 0.205 0.172 ②

Potential geological disasters 0.307 0.172 ②
Annual direct economic loss caused by storm 0.205 0.089 ①
Red tide areas 0.102 0.083 ①
Alien species invasion 0.205 0.089 ①
Sea level rise 0.205 0.094 ①
Identification and evaluation of major hazards 0.102 0.122 ①
Dangerous area plotting out 0.102 0.089 ①
Disaster monitoring and control ability 0.102 0.189 ②
Early-warning and prediction ability 0.102 0.183 ②
Disaster resistance ability of major constructions 0.102 0.139 ①
Disaster prevention ability of major project 0.102 0.089 ①
Disaster resistance ability of transport system 0.102 0.128 ①
Disaster resistance ability of communication system 0.102 0.094 ①
Disaster resistance ability of power supply system 0.102 0.133 ①
Disaster resistance ability of water supply system 0.102 0.122 ①
Disaster resistance ability of gas supply system 0.102 0.094 ①
Institutional structure of emergency organizations 0.102 0.089 ①
Emergency rescue commanding center 0.102 0.094 ①
Emergency commanding and decision-making ability 0.102 0.100 ①
Emergency coordination 0.102 0.083 ①
Emergency rescue planning 0.102 0.094 ①
Emergency response team rescue ability 0.102 0.106 ①
Emergency volunteer organizations rescue ability 0.102 0.094 ①
Emergency training 0.102 0.100 ①
Emergency drilling 0.102 0.089 ①
Disaster information release and report ability 0.102 0.106 ①
Adaption ability of shelter 0.102 0.094 ①
Public disaster rescuing ability 0.102 0.106 ①
Post-emergency settlement 0.102 0.094 ①
Recovery and reconstruction 0.102 0.144 ①
Firefighting support 0.102 0.106 ①
Communication and information support 0.102 0.089 ①
Material and equipment support 0.102 0.100 ①
Proportion of people living in hazard prone areas 0.102 0.089 ①
Marine oil spill 0.102 0.089 ①
Salinization and seawater intrusion 0.102 0.083 ①
Population density 2.049 0.311 ⑨
Population growth rate 1.230 0.317 ⑥
Population
Population in the scenic area 0.102 0.089 ①
(PO)
Total population 0.717 0.283 ⑥
Annual average population in municipal district 1.025 0.278 ⑥
36
Journal Pre-proof
Population life expectancy 0.102 0.094 ①

Population in rural 0.102 0.211 ②
Death rate 0.102 0.094 ①
Number of immigrants from other cities 0.307 0.283 ③
Changes in population structure 0.102 0.094 ①
Number of foreigners 0.102 0.089 ①
Population projection 0.205 0.078 ①
Number of disabled people 0.102 0.089 ①
Number of households where people aged 65 or older live 0.102 0.083 ①
People that work within urban area of residence 0.102 0.089 ①
Number of literate people 0.615 0.111 ①
Number of common colleges 0.410 0.206 ②
Education Number of primary and secondary schools 0.410 0.217 ②
(ED) The average number of teachers in colleges 0.307 0.178 ②
Number of students in common colleges 0.410 0.167 ②
Number of Kindergartens 0.102 0.222 ②
Number of doctors per 1000 people 0.717 0.261 ⑥
Regulatory policy and law enforcement level 0.307 0.239 ③
The community health service coverage rate 0.205 0.217 ②
Detection rate of criminal cases 0.102 0.178 ②
Social Service Social security coverage rate 0.410 0.250 ③
(SS) Urban and regional politics situation 0.410 0.106 ①
Postal traffic per capita 0.102 0.200 ②
Public safety 0.307 0.194 ②
Density of the business service center 0.102 0.178 ②
Number of retirement homes 0.102 0.117 ①
The distance from residential area 0.410 0.111 ①
The distance from primary traffic road 0.410 0.111 ①
The distance from eco-environmental sensitive areas 0.205 0.089 ①
The annual number of the tourists 0.307 0.256 ③
Noise compliance area coverage rate 0.102 0.239 ③
The housing price-to-income ratio 0.410 0.172 ②
Proportion of households with an average housing area of 10m2
0.205 0.089 ①
Living Quality per capita
(LQ) Proportion of ordinary commodity housing, low-rent housing, and
0.410 0.083 ①
economically affordable housing to the total housing stock
Pass rate of food safety spot check 0.102 0.083 ①
Pass rate of drug spot check 0.102 0.089 ①
Production mode and resident living style 0.205 0.078 ①
Social carrying capacity of residents 0.205 0.072 ①
Urban landscape improvements 0.205 0.089 ①
Regional advantage 0.205 0.072 ①
37
Journal Pre-proof
Tourist routes 0.307 0.067 ①

Urbanization rate 0.410 0.261 ③
Districts/Towns 0.102 0.094 ①
Building quality 0.205 0.144 ①
Building function 0.307 0.089 ①
Housing vacant rate 0.102 0.117 ①
Cement production 0.102 0.067 ①
Vehicle materials consumption 0.102 0.078 ①
Number of coastal observation stations 0.102 0.078 ①
Location in country's urban system and development orientation
0.102 0.089 ①
for development priority zones
Economic density 0.205 0.250 ③
Per capita deposit 0.307 0.089 ①
Per capita loan 0.410 0.094 ①
Per capita total retail sales of consumer goods 0.512 0.211 ②
Per capita gross fixed asset formation 0.615 0.211 ②
Per capita industrial profit 0.410 0.167 ②
Annual growth rate of GDP 0.615 0.306 ③
Per capita GDP 2.254 0.306 ⑨
The secondary industry share of GDP 0.820 0.278 ⑥
The tertiary industry share of GDP 0.922 0.283 ⑥
Per capita disposable income of urban households 0.717 0.222 ⑤
Per capita fiscal income 0.717 0.172 ⑤
Gini coefficient 0.205 0.106 ①
Annual growth rate of per capita disposable income of rural
0.205 0.144 ①
Economy residents
Development Annual growth rate of per-capita disposable income of urban
0.205 0.144 ①
(EC) residents
Annual growth rate of local government general budgetary
0.102 0.117 ①
financial revenue
Financial expenditure 0.102 0.144 ①
The ratio of interest rate to income 0.102 0.089 ①
Family entertainment, education, and cultural services spending 0.102 0.089 ①
Tourism benefits for host communities 0.102 0.083 ①
Tourism incomes for destinations 0.205 0.083 ①
Total exports share of GDP 0.410 0.289 ③
Intermediate consumption of primary industry 0.102 0.089 ①
Tourist spending 0.102 0.078 ①
Inflation rate 0.205 0.206 ②
Engel coefficient 0.410 0.111 ①
Number of industrial employees 0.102 0.211 ②
Proportion of tertiary industry employees 0.205 0.233 ③
38
Journal Pre-proof
Proportion of mining industry employees 0.102 0.089 ①

Average price of commercial land 0.102 0.089 ①
Number of households where any employed people live 0.102 0.089 ①
Urban registered unemployment rate 1.025 0.222 ⑤
Final consumption rate 0.102 0.078 ①
Product of import and export situation of port 0.102 0.094 ①
Number of patents granted per 10000 people 0.410 0.150 ②
Number of marine scientific research institution 0.205 0.089 ①
Technology and Proportion of research and development expenditures to GDP 0.307 0.289 ③
Renovation Scientific and technological progress 0.205 0.094 ①
(TE) Proportion of added value of high-tech products to gross industrial
0.102 0.283 ③
output value
Number of national economic and technical development zones 0.102 0.283 ③
Per capita sea area 0.102 0.089 ①
Marine capture yield 0.307 0.089 ①
Marine culture production 0.205 0.089 ①
Sea salt production 0.205 0.089 ①
Mangrove density 0.102 0.089 ①
Average coverage rate of coral reef 0.102 0.089 ①
Seagrass beds area 0.205 0.089 ①
The importance of biological resources protection 0.410 0.106 ①
The importance of nutrients preserving 0.102 0.083 ①
Rock desertification sensitivity 0.102 0.083 ①
Ecological Soil erosion sensitivity 0.102 0.100 ①
Environment Biocapacity 0.205 0.089 ①
(EE) Ecological footprint 0.205 0.233 ③
Development control 0.205 0.094 ①
Proportions of natural reserves 0.205 0.156 ②
Environmental protection investment 0.307 0.261 ③
Beach stability 0.102 0.089 ①
Beach quality 0.102 0.089 ①
The amount of aluminum exploitation 0.102 0.094 ①
The amount of rolled-steel exploitation 0.205 0.117 ①
The amount of copper exploitation 0.102 0.094 ①
Value of ecosystem services 0.102 0.089 ①
Per capita gross ocean product 0.102 0.089 ①
Public satisfaction of sports, education and culture facilities 0.205 0.133 ①
Public satisfaction of urban traffic 0.102 0.239 ③
Public
Propaganda and public relationship 0.102 0.089 ①
Perception
Tourist satisfaction 0.205 0.194 ②
(PP)
Perception of future social carrying capacity of residents 0.102 0.089 ①
Changes in population well-being 0.102 0.089 ①
39
Journal Pre-proof
Community participation 0.205 0.150 ②

Number of cultural and artistic venues 0.102 0.122 ①
Cultural heritage conservation 0.102 0.239 ③
Culture Aspects
Cultural investment 0.205 0.256 ③
(CA)
Culture life 0.102 0.083 ①
Sociocultural influence on local population 0.102 0.089 ①
Per capita grain yield 0.410 0.200 ②
Agricultural labor productivity 0.205 0.189 ②
The amount of large livestock 0.205 0.183 ②
Agriculture and The amount of small livestock 0.102 0.211 ②
Poultry Total output of vegetables 0.102 0.150 ②
(AP) Total output of fruits 0.102 0.150 ②
Chemical fertilizers consumption 0.102 0.100 ①
Total output of meat 0.102 0.139 ①
Pesticides consumption 0.102 0.094 ①
40
Journal Pre-proof
Highlights:
 A popularity-suitability bi-dimensional (PSBD) model is proposed.
 PSBD model is an innovative approach to examine the effectiveness of urban
carrying capacity (UCC) indicators.
 335 candidate UCC evaluating indicators are identified from previous studies.
 Advocated indicators, bubble indicators, overlooked indicators and avoidable
indicators can be identified based on PSBD model.
 A demonstration of Chongqing is used to present the application of PSBD model.

Ucc 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ucc 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Analysis on the effectiveness of indicators for evaluating urban carrying capacity:

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 05 June 2019

© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Analysis on the effectiveness of indicators for evaluating

a School of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University,

E-mail address: zhi.liu@cqu.edu.cn (Z. Liu), rrtyijia@163.com (Y. T. Ren),

Analysis on the effectiveness of indicators for evaluating

15 Firstly, a popularity-suitability bi-dimensional (PSBD) model is developed by

1 In the third research procedure, a practical survey template is designed to obtain

11 3 Development of PSBD model

20 Figure 2. The popularity-suitability bi-dimensional model

21 In Figure 2, the popularity degree (P) of a specific indicator is measured by its

1 quotation frequency in literature, representing the indicator’s popularity from

15 Where i represents a specific UCC indicator (i=1, 2, …, m), Ni represents the

14 4 Identification of the candidate UCC indicators

Natural resources supply, Ecological environment tolerance,

16 5 Popularity analysis on the candidate UCC indicators

2 𝑃𝑀 ∈ [ 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 2(𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛)

(CA); Agriculture and Poultry (AP)

1 By referring to the data in Appendix, the number of indicators included in each

19 Figure 5. The average popularity and number of indicators in 19 UCC dimensions

16 6 Practical survey template

21 Figure 6. The design process of practical survey template

22 During the design process, it is important to identify proper targeted respondents

5 Figure 7. Departments influencing the performance of UCC

6 After the identification of respondents, a pilot survey is conducted to investigate

Part Ⅰ Semi-structured interview

Q1: What are the characteristic resources in your city?

Dimension Indicator Suitability degree

1 7 A demonstration of PSBD model application

2 This section presents a demonstration of PSBD model application, the city of

4 7.1 Suitability measurement of UCC indicators in Chongqing

1 7.2 Discussions on the application of PSBD model

18 In referring to the demonstration city Chongqing, the effectiveness of individual

6 The practice of sustainable development needs the identification of effective

1 recommendations can therefore be developed and implemented by incorporating these

1 environment in Shenyang-Dalian urban agglomeration. Scientifica, 2016, 1-10.

1 The Total Environment, 646, 524-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.045

Utility of land production 0.102 0.089 ①

(IN) Number of hospital beds per 10000 people 0.820 0.250 ⑥

Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste 0.922 0.267 ⑥

(DI) Flood vulnerability 0.205 0.172 ②

Population life expectancy 0.102 0.094 ①

Tourist routes 0.307 0.067 ①

Proportion of mining industry employees 0.102 0.089 ①

Community participation 0.205 0.150 ②

 A popularity-suitability bi-dimensional (PSBD) model is proposed.

 PSBD model is an innovative approach to examine the effectiveness of urban

carrying capacity (UCC) indicators.

 Advocated indicators, bubble indicators, overlooked indicators and avoidable

indicators can be identified based on PSBD model.

 A demonstration of Chongqing is used to present the application of PSBD model.

You might also like