Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Analysis of the types of animal husbandry and planting that influence

household biogas in rural China
Yaxing Li a, Bojie Yan a, *, Yanfang Qin a, Wenjiao Shi b, c, Jingjie Yan d
a
College of Geography and Oceanography, Minjiang University, Fuzhou, 350108, China
b
Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing, 100101, China
c
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China
d
College of Telecommunications and Information Engineering, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing, 210003, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Bin Chen Producing biogas from agricultural waste by using a household biogas digester has a critical role in increasing
energy supply and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in rural areas. However, only a few studies have analyzed
Keywords: the type of animal husbandry and planting that influence household biogas. This paper analyzes the spatial-
Household biogas temporal distribution of household biogas and its proportion in the total biogas produced in rural China from
Biogas production
2009 to 2018. The correlation between household biogas in rural China and animal husbandry and planting from
Animal husbandry
2009 to 2018 is also examined. The types of animal husbandry and planting that influence household biogas are
Planting
Ordinary least squares then respectively determined via ordinary least squares and geographically weighted regression. Results show
Geographically weighted regression that the spatial-temporal distributions of household biogas with maximum and minimum values of 1.384 × 1010
m3 in 2011 and 0.8420 × 1010 m3 in 2018, respectively and its proportion with maximum and minimum values
of 94.83% in 2009 and 75.07% in 2018, respectively significantly vary and show a declining trend from 2009 to
2018. The number of cattle and pigs is identified as the main animal husbandry factor that influences household
biogas, whereas the planting areas of vegetables, fiber, and tobacco were identified to be the main planting
factors. Considering fitting effects, R2 and adjusted R2 values of 0.8620 and 0.8100 obtained by geographically
weighted regression respectively, were higher than those of ordinary least squares (0.6480 and 0.6220,
respectively), respectively in animal husbandry factors, whereas R2 and adjusted R2 values of 0.8400 and 0.7990
obtained by geographically weighted regression, respectively, were higher than those of ordinary least squares
(0.7190 and 0.6880, respectively) in planting factors. These results provide a reference for planning the pro­
duction of biogas and the utilization of agricultural waste.

1. Introduction Biogas production is particularly important in increasing energy supply

The current energy crisis and climate change events occurring all
over the worldwide have prompted researchers and practitioners to
identify renewable energy resources conducted by Chang et al. (2014),
Sarker et al. (2019) and Lu and Gao (2021). Uhunamure et al. (2019),
Abbas et al. (2020) and Giwa et al. (2020) showed that biogas is an
environmentally friendly energy resource that can be used in cooking,
heating, generating electricity, and solving future global energy and
climate crises. Therefore, many countries have devoted considerable
effort to biogas production, realizing economic (Scarlat et al., 2018),
environmental (Gu et al., 2016), and climate benefits (Gao et al., 2019).
(Chen et al., 2017) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in rural areas
(Lemma et al., 2021). However, biogas was mainly produced in small,
household biogas digesters for heating and cooking traditionally in
developing countries (Xue et al., 2020).
China is among the first consumers of biogas in the world whose
consumption history can be traced back to nearly 100 years (Li et al.,
2020). China has always focused on the development of biogas as
demonstrated by Chen et al. (2012) and Giwa et al. (2020) and has even
drafted a series of laws, regulations, policies, and standard systems to
accelerate the development of its biogas industry as indicated by Li et al.
(2014), Li et al. (2018), Liu (2019), and Xue et al. (2020). The Chinese

* Corresponding author. College of Geography and Oceanography, Minjiang University, Fuzhou, 350108, China.
E-mail addresses: lyx_fzedu@163.com (Y. Li), bnunercita@163.com (B. Yan), yanfangqin88@163.com (Y. Qin), Shiwj_bj@163.com (W. Shi), yanjjzj2018@163.
com (J. Yan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130025
Received 10 September 2021; Received in revised form 11 November 2021; Accepted 5 December 2021
Available online 13 December 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Li et al.
government also invested more than 42 billion yuan as a financial
subsidy to support household biogas production, various biogas pro­
jects, and construction of village biogas service networks from 2000 to
2017 (Li et al., 2018). By the end of 2018, China had constructed 39.077
million household biogas digesters in rural areas and completed 108,100
biogas projects that respectively produce 8.420 billion m3 and 2.755
billion m3 of biogas every yearly, as reported by the Ministry of Agri­
culture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (2020) and Li
et al. (2020), respectively. The biogas industry of China had developed
rapidly and achieved remarkable benefits. However, the biogas pro­
duction of China was mainly from decentralized household biogas di­
gesters, and the construction and application of large- and medium-scale
biogas projects started relatively late and showed several phenomena,
such as low comprehensive utilization rate of biogas products, large
scrap volume, and low values of biogas power generation and utilization
rates (Xu et al. (2018) and Luo et al. (2020)). The proportion of actual
biogas production to total potential biogas and that of biogas produced
by large- and medium-scale biogas plants to actual biogas production
were both low indicated by Chang et al. (2014) and Yan et al. (2021)
despite abundant biogas resources in China (Gao et al., 2019).
Many researchers have identified several factors that influence
biogas production, such as biogas resources conducted by Tang et al.
(2010), Chen et al. (2013) and Yan et al. (2021), socioeconomic status
conducted by Gu et al. (2016) and Yan et al. (2021), climatic conditions
conducted by Chen et al. (2013), Zhang et al. (2020), Allah et al. (2021)
and Meyer et al. (2021), and available technologies (Giwa et al., 2020).
Tang et al. (2010) demonstrated a significant positive correlation be­
tween annual biogas production from households and the number of
pigs across 13 counties located in different climate zones and 5 biogas
development regions in China. Chen et al. (2013) found that ground
temperature, solar energy, crop straw, and manure affected the house­
hold production of biogas in rural China. Some studies show that so­
cioeconomic status directly affects the production and development of
biogas production (Gu et al., 2016). In addition to socioeconomic status,
Giwa et al. (2020) argued that politics, religion, culture, climate con­
ditions, and technology transfer also affect biogas production in China.
Yan et al. (2021) found that rural population, planting area of oil crops,
hemp, and vegetables, highway mileage, and number of household
biogas digesters were all significantly correlated with biogas production
in rural areas.
Overall, existing studies mainly focus on demonstrating factors that
influence biogas production. Only a few studies have shown the spatial-
temporal differences in the household biogas and analyzed the type of
animal husbandry and planting that influence household biogas. In
addition, the household biogas digester’s main biogas resource was
animal manure and crop straw especially in rural China pointed by Li
et al. (2009) and Chen et al. (2018). China is rich in agricultural wasters
such as animal manure and crop straw (Gao et al., 2019). However,
many types of animal husbandry and planting are available, and those
that have a remarkable impact on household biogas remain unknown. At
present, a few studies have not cleared the type of animal husbandry and
planting that influence household biogas and spatial heterogeneity of
these influencing factors. However, identifying the types of animal
husbandry and planting that influence household biogas is of consid­
erable importance to promote its sustainable development.
The current study analyzes the spatial-temporal distribution of
household biogas and its proportion in the total biogas produced in rural
China by Geographic information system (GIS) spatial analysis to fill this
gap. This study also examines the correlation between household biogas
in rural China with the type of animal husbandry and planting and tests
these types that influence household biogas through the ordinary least
squares (OLS) and geographically weighted regression (GWR) models,
respectively. The objectives of this study are as follows: (i) to reveal the
spatial-temporal differences in the household biogas and its proportion
in the total biogas produced in rural China, (ii) to determine the cor­
relation of household biogas in rural China with the type of animal
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025
husbandry and planting, and (iii) to identify the types of animal hus­
bandry and planting that influence household biogas. The novelty and
originality of the paper was showed in Table 1. The abbreviations, no­
tations, nomenclatures, and symbols of the paper was showed in Table 2.
2. Methods
2.1. Data collection and processing
Statistical data on livestock and poultry including cattle, horses,
donkeys, mules, sheep, pigs, and poultry, as well as planting areas of
crops, including rice, wheat, corn, beans, tubers, vegetables, fruits, to­
bacco, sugar, hemp, cotton, and oilseeds, biogas production from
household biogas digester, and biogas projects in rural China from 2009
to 2018 were collected from the China Rural Statistical Yearbook (Rural
social and Economic Investigation Department of National Bureau of
Statistics, 2010-2019). The vector map of the administrative region of
China was collected from the geospatial data cloud (www.gscloud.cn).
The statistical data and the vector map of the administrative region of
China were spatially joined at a provincial scale by ArcGIS 10.3
software.
The IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 software was used to study the corre­
lation of biogas production from household biogas digester in rural
China with the types of animal husbandry and planting and to test its
multicollinearity. ArcGIS 10.3 software was used for the spatial auto­
correlation analysis, OLS, GWR, and drawing of spatial graphs. The
research framework was showed in Fig. 1.
2.2. Spatial autocorrelation analysis
Global spatial autocorrelation can reflect the overall spatial associ­
ation and difference among regions and can be used to determine
whether the distribution of feature attributes demonstrates spatial cor­
relation or agglomeration as measured using Moran’s I showen by Zhao
et al. (2016) and Hu et al. (2021). Global Moran’s I index can be
calculated as follows referring from the literature conducted by Zhao
et al. (2016), Hu et al. (2021) and Duan et al. (2021):
∑
n ∑
n
n Kij (xi − X)(xj − X)
(1)
i=1 j∕
=i
I=
∑ ∑
n n ∑
n
(xi − X)2 Kij
i=1 i=1 j∕
=i
where I is global Moran’s I index; Kij is the spatial weight matrix; xi is
attribute values in province i; xj is attribute values in province j; X is the
average value of the attributes; n is the total number of province.
2.3. Ordinary least squares
OLS is the fundamental regression method used to examine global
Table 1
The novelty and originality of the paper.
Serial The novelty and originality
number
1 Reveal the spatial-temporal differences in the household biogas in
rural China by GIS spatial analysis
2 Display the spatial-temporal distribution of the proportion of
household biogas digester in total biogas produced in rural China by
GIS spatial analysis
3 Determine the correlation of biogas production from household
biogas digester in rural China with the type of animal husbandry and
planting
4 Identify type of animal husbandry and planting that influence
household biogas by OLS model
5 Reveal spatial heterogeneity of the type of animal husbandry and
planting influencing on household biogas by GWR model
Y. Li et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025

Table 2 3. Results
The abbreviations, notations, nomenclatures, and symbols of the paper.
The abbreviations, notations, nomenclatures, and Description 3.1. Spatial-temporal distribution of household biogas in rural China
symbols

GIS Geographic information system The spatial-temporal distribution of household biogas and its pro­
VIF Variance inflation factor portion in the total biogas produced in rural China from 2009 to 2018
OLS Ordinary least squares was obtained using ArcGIS 10.3. Figs. 2–5 present the results.
GWR Geographically weighted Fig. 2 shows that the total household biogas in rural China generally
regression
AIC Akaike information criterion
declined from 2009 to 2018, with maximum and minimum values of
R2 R-squared 1.384 × 1010 m3 in 2011 and 0.8420 × 1010 m3 in 2018, respectively.
HTC Hydrothermal carbonization Fig. 3 shows that the proportion of household biogas in the total biogas
AD Anaerobic digestion produced in rural China from 2009 to 2018 has been declining since
2009, with maximum and minimum values of 94.83% in 2009 and
75.07% in 2018, respectively. Fig. 4 shows variations in the spatial-
temporal distributions of household biogas in rural China from 2009
to 2018. The high household biogas was mainly distributed in Guangxi
Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sichuan, Yunnan, Henan, Hubei, and
Hunan, whereas the low household biogas was mainly spread in Hei­
longjiang, Jilin, Beijing, Tianjin, Zhejiang, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia,
Qinghai, Tibet, Xinjiang, Shanghai, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region,
Jiangsu, Fujian, Guangdong, and Shanxi. Specifically, Sichuan reported
the highest household biogas of 0.2409 × 1010 m3 in 2015, whereas
Shanghai and Beijing reported the lowest household biogas of 0 m3 from
2009 to 2018 and from 2017 to 2018, respectively. Similarly, Fig. 5
shows variations in the spatial-temporal distribution of the proportion of
household biogas in the total biogas produced in rural China. Such a
proportion was generally high, with most provinces reporting pro­
portions above 80%. Tibet reported a 100% proportion in 2015, whereas
Shanghai and Beijing reported the lowest proportion of 0% from 2009 to
2018 and from 2017 to 2018, respectively. Some provinces, including
Beijing, Fujian, Guangdong, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia Hui Autonomous
Region, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Heilongjiang, showed obvious changes in
Fig. 1. The research framework. their household biogas proportion. Tibet demonstrated the largest
changes in its proportion followed by Heilongjiang, whereas Shanghai
regression coefficient, the OLS can be described as follows (Koh et al., showed no variations in its proportion throughout the study period.
2020):
∑
m 3.2. Correlation of household biogas with types of animal husbandry and
y = β0 + βi xi + ε (2) planting
i

A correlation analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0.

where y is the dependent variable; β0 is the intercept term; xi is the in­
dependent variable; βi is the regression coefficient; ε is the error term; m
is the number of independent variables.
2.4. Geographically weighted regression
GWR is a locally weighted regression model proposed by Brunsdon
et al. that can estimate the impact on different areas and reflect the
spatial non-stationarity of variables across various spatial positions
conducted by Brunsdon et al. (1996) and Xu et al. (2020). The GWR can
be described as follows referring from literature counducted by Xu et al.
(2020), Koh et al. (2020) and Kopczewska and Wiakowski (2021):
∑
m cotton.
yi = β0 (ui , vi ) + βh (ui , vi )xih + εi
h
Table 3 and 4 present the results. The number of cattle, horses, donkeys,
mules, sheep, pigs, and poultry were counted as representative products
of animal husbandry, whereas the planting areas of rice, wheat, corn,
beans, tubers, vegetables, fruits, tobacco, sugar, hemp, cotton, and oil­
seeds were measured as representative planting products. Table 3 shows
a significant correlation between household biogas and the number of
cattle and pigs, but no correlation is found between household biogas
and the number of donkeys, mules, horses, sheep, and poultry. Mean­
while, Table 4 presents a significant correlation between household
biogas and the planting areas of tubers, vegetables, tobacco, oilseeds,
sugar, tubers, and fiber, but no correlation is observed between house­
hold biogas and the planting areas of rice, wheat, corn, beans, fruits, and
(3)
3.3. OLS model analysis results

where yi is the dependent variable of the location i; β0 (ui,vi) is the

regression coefficient for location i; ui, vi is the geographical coordinates
of the location i; m is the number of independent variables; xih is inde­
pendent variable of location i; βh (ui,vi) is the continuous function βh (ui,
vi) in location i; εi is the error term.
3.3.1. Influence of animal husbandry
The correlation analysis results revealed that the number of cattle
and pigs was identified as the main animal husbandry factor that in­
fluences household biogas. An OLS regression analysis was performed
after the multicollinearity test using household biogas and the number
of cattle and pigs as the dependent and independent variables, respec­
tively. Table 5 presents the OLS results. The independent variable passed
the significance test of 0.01000, whereas the constant term passed the
significance test of 0.05000. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was less
than 7.500, thereby suggesting the absence of a redundant explanatory

3
Y. Li et al.
Fig. 2. The trend of total household biogas in rural China from 2009 to 2018.
Fig. 3. The trend of proportion of household biogas digester in total biogas produced in rural China from 2009 to 2018.
variable. Considering its significance level, the number of cattle and pigs
had a significant positive impact on household biogas in 2018. A com­
parison of their regression coefficients revealed that the effect of the
number of cattle on household biogas was larger than that of the number
of pigs. The OLS results also showed that household biogas would in­
crease by 54.83 and 12.33 units after respectively raising the number of
cattle and pigs by 1 standardized unit, respectively.
3.3.2. Influence of planting
The correlation analysis results indicated that the planting areas of
vegetables, tobacco, and fiber were identified as the main factors of
planting that influence household biogas. An OLS regression analysis
was conducted after the multicollinearity test, with household biogas
and the planting areas of vegetables, tobacco, and fiber as the dependent
and independent variables, respectively. Table 6 presents the OLS re­
sults. In addition to the constant term, all items passed the significance
test of 0.01000. The VIF was less than 7.500, thereby suggesting the
absence of a redundant explanatory variable. The planting areas of
vegetables, tobacco, and fiber all had significant positive impacts on
household biogas in 2018, with the planting area of fiber exerting a
larger impact than the number of pigs based on their regression co­
efficients. The OLS results revealed that household biogas would
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025
increase by 31.54, 214.7, and 3119 units after respectively raising the
planting areas of vegetables, tobacco, and fiber by 1 standardized unit.
The uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were conducted through
stepwise regression in this paper. The standard regression coefficient
represents the contribution rate of the parameter to the variance of the
entire output result (Cai et al., 2008; Li et al., 2012). A large value results
in a sensitive parameter and a large contribution rate to the uncertainty
of the model result (Cheng et al., 2020). Therefore, this study used the
standard regression coefficient to analyze uncertainty and sensitivity.
The results are presented in Tables 5 and 6 Table 5 demonstrates that the
number of pigs had stronger uncertainty and sensitivity than that of
cattle according to the value of the standard regression coefficient.
Table 6 indicates that the planting area of vegetables had the strongest
uncertainty and sensitivity, followed by that of tobacco and fiber, which
demonstrated the weakest uncertainty and sensitivity according to the
value of the standard regression coefficient.
3.4. GWR model analysis results
The OLS cannot reflect the heterogeneity among regions and the
spatial non-stationarity of each local region by only considering a ho­
mogeneous space (Ma and Yang, 2019). Therefore, a GWR was
Y. Li et al.
Fig. 4. Spatial-temporal distribution of household biogas in rural China (a,
2009 b, 2010 c, 2011 d, 2012 e, 2013 f, 2014 g, 2015 h, 2016, i, 2017, j, 2018).
performed with household biogas and the types of animal husbandry
and planting as the dependent and independent variables, respectively.
The spatial non-stationarity of household biogas in rural China was then
analyzed from a local perspective, and the results were compared with
those of OLS to verify the superiority of GWR. The spatial relationship
among the dependent variables should be determined before performing
GWR. The spatial correlation degree of household biogas in rural China
in 2018 was analyzed on the basis of the global Moran’s I index using
ArcGIS 10.3. The 0.1920 Moran’s I index, 0.02000 P value, and 3.097 Z
score all indicated the spatial agglomeration of household biogas in rural
China. Therefore, GWR was used to analyze the influence of the types of
animal husbandry and planting on household biogas given the spatial
autocorrelation of the dependent variables and the inadequacy of the
OLS fitting results.
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025
Fig. 5. Spatial-temporal distribution of proportion of household biogas digester
in total biogas produced in rural China (a, 2009 b, 2010 c, 2011 d, 2012 e, 2013
f, 2014 g, 2015 h, 2016, i, 2017, j, 2018).
3.4.1. Influence of animal husbandry
The household biogas and number of cattle and pigs in 2018 were
fitted by GWR in ArcGIS 10.3. The AICC calculation method was applied
for the model bandwidth, and the fixed core width was used for the
GWR. Fig. 6 and Table 7 present the GWR results. Fig. 6 shows that the
number of cattle and household biogas are positively and negatively
correlated in most provinces and only a few provinces, respectively.
Meanwhile, the number of pigs and household biogas show a positive
correlation across all provinces. The regression coefficient of the number
of cattle decreased from South to North China in 2018 considering
spatial distribution. Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangxi, Hunan, Guizhou,
Guangxi, and Hainan reported high regression coefficients, whereas
Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Beijing, Tianjin,
Shandong, and Xinjiang reported low regression coefficients. Hainan
Y. Li et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025

Table 3
Correlation analysis results of household biogas and animal husbandry from 2009 to 2018.
Number of livestock or poultry 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
b b b b b b b b b
Number of cattle 0.6484 0.6470 0.6186 0.6382 0.6438 0.6492 0.6432 0.6279 0.5351 0.5520b
Number of horse 0.3972a 0.3909a 0.4015a 0.3711a 0.3409 0.3464 0.3611a 0.3234 0.2897 0.2784
Number of donkey − 0.0914 − 0.0879 − 0.1042 − 0.09537 − 0.09725 − 0.09959 − 0.0917 − 0.0690 − 0.1147 − 0.09933
Number of mule − 0.2392 0.2389 0.2428 0.2680 0.2564 0.2821 0.2675 0.3168 0.4313a 0.4871b
Number of sheep 0.0713 0.0750 0.0457 0.0475 0.0461 0.04138 0.0562 0.0358 − 0.004520 0.006343
Number of pig 0.7916b 0.8033b 0.7667b 0.7899b 0.7978b 0.7912b 0.7824b 0.7821b 0.7255b 0.7426b
Number of poultry 0.3598a 0.3855a 0.3856a 0.3949a 0.4153a 0.4259a 0.3867a 0.4079a 0.2726 0.2736
a
Significant correlation at 0.05 level (bilateral).
b
Significant correlation at 0.01 level (bilateral).

Table 4
Correlation analysis results of household biogas and planting from 2009 to 2018.
Planting area of crops 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
a a a a a
Planting area of rice 0.3588 0.3492 0.3598 0.3679 0.3751 0.3750 0.3488 0.3524 0.3178 0.3343
Planting area of wheat 0.3871a 0.3961a 0.3305 0.3382 0.3283 0.3106 0.2922 0.3083 0.1732 0.1694
Planting area of corn 0.2103 0.1912 0.1421 0.1208 0.1014 0.08933 0.0749 0.0995 0.06437 0.05245
Planting area of beans − 0.06558 − 0.05441 − 0.0441 0.0008331 0.0223 0.02488 0.0342 − 0.006029 − 0.03317 − 0.01607
Planting area of tubers 0.6050b 0.6083b 0.5637b 0.5981b 0.6152b 0.6498b 0.6705b 0.6109b 0.6230b 0.6286b
Planting area of vegetables 0.6746b 0.6879b 0.6671b 0.6869b 0.6839b 0.6876b 0.6506b 0.6898b 0.6876b 0.6784b
Planting area of fruits 0.3163 0.3611a 0.3322 0.3396 0.3249 0.3176 0.2898 0.3245 0.2832 0.2891
Planting area of tobacco 0.6144b 0.5519b 0.5192b 0.5309b 0.5256b 0.5215b 0.5058b 0.5692b 0.6175b 0.6354b
Planting area of sugar 0.3831a 0.3763a 0.5071b 0.4552b 0.4620b 0.4801b 0.4376a 0.4898b 0.4709b 0.4124a
Planting area of fiber 0.6351b 0.6672b 0.6656b 0.7079b 0.7302b 0.7011b 0.7501b 0.5893b 0.3407 0.4177a
Planting area of cotton 0.1412 0.1456 0.0869 0.0579 0.03041 − 0.01560 − 0.02771 − 0.03293 − 0.09330 − 0.09703
Planting area of oils 0.6385b 0.6582b 0.5871b 0.6224b 0.6283b 0.6145b 0.6073b 0.5949b 0.5885b 0.6399b
a
Significant correlation at 0.05 level (bilateral).
b
Significant correlation at 0.01 level (bilateral).

Table 5
Parameter estimation and test results of OLS model of animal husbandry and household biogas.
Influencing factors Regression coefficient Standard deviation t value P value Tolerance Variance expansion factor (VIF)

Constant term − 1.619. × 105 7586 − 2.134 0.0410

Number of cattle 54.83 19.85 2.763 0.01000 0.8760 1.142
Number of pig 12.33 2.362 5.219 0.000 0.8760 1.142

Table 6
Parameter estimation and test results of OLS model of planting area of crops and household biogas.
Influencing factors Regression Standard Standard regression t value P value Tolerance Variance expansion factor
coefficient deviation coefficient (VIF)

Constant term − 6654 6231 − 1.068 0.2950

Planting area of 31.54 8.012 0.4470 3.854 0.001000 0.8060 1.216
vegetables
Planting area of tobacco 214.7 55.71 0.4340 3.936 0.001000 0.8220 1.240
Planting area of fiber 3119 958.8 0.3360 3.253 0.003000 0.9780 1.022

reported the highest regression coefficient of 125.14, and Heilongjiang
reported the lowest coefficient of − 13.980. The regression coefficient of
the number of pigs decreased from Northwest to Southeast China in
2018. Xinjiang, Qinghai, Tibet, Gansu, Sichuan, Ningxia and Yunnan
reported high regression coefficients, whereas Heilongjiang, Fujian,
Jiangxi, Guangdong, Hainan, Guangxi, Hunan, Hubei, Anhui, Jiangsu,
Zhejiang, and Shanghai reported low regression coefficients. Tibet had
the highest coefficient of 20.28, whereas Hainan had the lowest coeffi­
cient of 4.773. Table 7 shows that GWR has minimum AICC, maximum
R2, and minimum residual squares, all indicating that the fitting effect of
household biogas and the number of cattle and pigs based on GWR was
better than that based on OLS. In addition, the AICc of GWR was 15.93
less than that of OLS, indicating that the fitting effect of GWR was
significantly better than that of OLS.
The comparison of the fitting effects of two models revealed that
GWR had R2 and adjusted R2 values of 0.8620 and 0.8100, respectively,
which were both larger than those of OLS (0.6480 and 0.6220, respec­
tively). Thus, GWR could explain 86.20% of the influence of the number
of cattle and pigs on household biogas, whereas OLS could only explain
64.80%. In this case, GWR can be used to explain the influence of the
number of cattle and pigs on household biogas at the local level
considering its degree of explanation, that is, 21.40% points higher than
that of OLS. GWR could reflect 63.20%–91.00% of the total variation of
household biogas considering the local R2 (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7 shows a high fitting effect of local R2 in Western China and a
low fitting effect in the northeastern and eastern coastal regions, thereby
suggesting that the household biogas in these regions may also be
affected by other factors. The spatial autocorrelation of the standardized
residuals of GWR was then validated. The spatial autocorrelation coef­
ficient, Z value, and P value were − 0.054, − 0.2710, and 0.7860,
respectively. This finding suggests the random distribution of the stan­
dard deviation of the GWR prediction value in space and the good fitting

6
Y. Li et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of regression coefficient estimation of cattle (a) and pig (b) on household biogas.

Table 7
Comparison between OLS model and GWR Model of animal husbandry and household biogas.
Model Bandwidth AICc R2 Adjusted R2 Residual Squares Sigma
10
OLS model 719.2 0.6480 0.6220 1.590 × 10 2.383 × 104
GWR model 1.504 × 106 703.3 0.8620 0.8100 6.210 × 109 1.6893 × 104

Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of local R2.

effect of the model.
3.4.2. Influence of planting
The household biogas and planting areas of vegetables, tobacco, and
fiber in 2018 were fitted by GWR in ArcGIS 10.3. The AICC calculation
method was selected for the model bandwidth, and the fixed core width
was selected for the GWR. Fig. 8 and Table 8 present the results. Fig. 8
shows that the planting areas of vegetables, fiber, and tobacco are all
positively correlated with household biogas across all provinces. The
regression coefficient of the planting area of vegetables decreased from
Northeast to Southwest China in 2018 considering spatial distribution.
Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Shanxi, Beijing, Tianjin and Shandong
reported high regression coefficients, whereas Guangdong, Yunnan,
Tibet, Guizhou, Guangxi and Hainan reported low coefficients. Inner

7
Y. Li et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025

Fig. 8. Spatial distribution of regression coefficient estimation of planting areas of vegetables (a), fiber (b), and tobacco (c) of planting on household biogas.

Table 8
Comparison between OLS model and GWR model of planting area of crops and household biogas.
Model Bandwidth AICc R2 Adjusted R2 Residual Squares Sigma

OLS model 715.1 0.7190 0.6880 1.2676 × 1010 2.167 × 104

GWR model 1.936 × 106 704.3 0.8400 0.7990 7.2209 × 109 1.740 × 104

Mongolia obtained the highest regression coefficient of 30.78, whereas
Hainan reported the lowest regression coefficient of 23.12.
The regression coefficient of the planting area of fiber decreased
from Northeast to Southwest China in 2018. Guangdong, Yunnan,
Sichuan, Tibet, Guizhou, Guangxi, and Hainan reported high regression
coefficients, whereas Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Jilin, Inner Mongolia,
Hebei, Beijing, Tianjin, and Shandong reported low coefficients. Hainan
and Heilongjiang respectively obtained the highest and lowest regres­
sion coefficients of 6222 and 599.1. The regression coefficient of the
planting area of tobacco decreased from Northwest to Southeast China
in 2018. Heilongjiang, Liaoning, and Jilin reported high regression co­
efficients, whereas Guangdong, Fujian, Hainan, Jiangxi, Hunan, Hubei,
Chongqing, Guizhou, Guangxi, Shaanxi, Gansu, Ningxia and Henan re­
ported low coefficients. Heilongjiang and Guangdong respectively ob­
tained the highest and lowest regression coefficients of 276.1 and 213.2.
Table 8 shows that GWR had minimum AICC, maximum R2, and mini­
mum residual squares. This finding indicates the fitting effect of
household biogas and the superiority of the planting areas of vegetables,
fiber, and tobacco based on GWR to those based on OLS. Moreover, the
AICC of GWR was 10.82 less than that of OLS, indicating that the fitting
effect of the former was significantly better than that of the latter.
The comparison of the fitting effect of the two models revealed that
GWR obtained R2 and adjusted R2 values of 0.8400 and 0.7990,
respectively, which were both higher than those of OLS (0.7190 and

Fig. 9. Spatial distribution of local R2.

8
Y. Li et al.
0.6880, respectively). Therefore, GWR can explain 84.00% of the in­
fluence of the planting areas of vegetables, fiber, and tobacco on
household biogas, whereas OLS can only explain 71.90% of such influ­
ence. Overall, GWR can be used to explain the influence of the above
variables on household biogas at the local level, and its degree of
explanation is 12.10% higher than that of OLS. GWR could reflect
67.10%–88.70% of the total variation of household biogas based on
local R2. Fig. 9 shows the high and low fitting effects of local R2 in West
China and Northeast China, respectively, thereby suggesting that the
household biogas in the latter may also be affected by other factors. The
spatial autocorrelation of the standardized residuals of GWR was then
evaluated. The spatial autocorrelation coefficient, Z value, and P value
were − 0.03500, − 0.0190, and 0.9850, respectively. This finding in­
dicates the random distribution of the standard deviation of the GWR
prediction value in space and the good fitting effect of the model.
Overall, the OLS model was used to analyze the types of animal
husbandry and planting that influence household biogas. However, the
OLS model was only suitable for the average or global estimation of
parameters; thus, ensuring the stationarity of parameters was difficult.
Therefore, the GWR model was used in this study to analyze the re­
lationships between the types of animal husbandry and planting and
biogas production from household biogas digester under spatially
nonstationary conditions. This study also used the OLS and GWR models
to explore the types of animal husbandry and planting that influence
biogas production from the global and local perspectives of household
biogas digester, respectively.
4. Discussion
4.1. Spatial-temporal differences in household biogas
Spatial-temporal differences across provinces were observed in the
household biogas in rural China, which are consistent with the findings
of previous research by Gu et al. (2016) and Giwa et al. (2020). The
spatial-temporal differences in household biogas could be attributed to
climate conditions (Chen et al., 2013), biogas resources (Tang et al.,
2010), and socioeconomic status (Yan et al., 2021). For example, China
has a vast territory with substantial changes in altitude, thus forming a
remarkable climate difference in different provinces, which is an
important factor that affects the household biogas (Gu et al., 2016).
Therefore, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sichuan, and Yunnan
in southwest China had high household biogas in this paper. The results
obtained by (Gu et al., 2016) and (Yan et al., 2021) also indicated out
that the provinces in southwest China had high biogas production. Gu
et al. (2016) also highlighted variations in biogas production across
different cases due to differences in climate conditions, natural resource
endowments, socioeconomic statuses, industrialization levels, and
availability of technologies. The above results prove such differences by
using recent data.
Moreover, this study showed that household biogas is the main
source of biogas production in China. Consistent with Chang et al.
(2014) and Gu et al. (2016), these results suggest that biogas in rural
China is mainly produced using household biogas digesters. The findings
may be attributed to stimulation and support of various policies, such as
Wealthy Project of Environment Homestead (2000), measures for the
administration of national debt projects for rural biogas construction
(2003), and the Renewable Energy Law (2006) (Luo et al., 2021).
Compared with the results in Chang et al. (2014) and Gu et al. (2016),
this study obtained updated research results from 2009 to 2018.
Comprehensive knowledge of the development status of biogas pro­
duction in China could be acquired by combining the results from Chang
et al. (2014) and Gu et al. (2016) and those obtained in the current
study. These results could help the government in formulating scientific
planning in developing biogas production for the future.
In addition, relative data such as household biogas per number of
animals or planting area of crops, could provide additional interesting
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025
information. Therefore, this study obtained the spatial distribution of
household biogas per number of cattle, pigs, and planting areas of
vegetables, fiber, and tobacco in China in 2018. Therefore, The results
are presented in Fig. 10. This figure demonstrates variations in the
spatial distribution of household biogas per number of cattle (a), pigs
(b), and planting areas of vegetables (c), fiber (d), and tobacco (e) in
China in 2018. This results meant that the main types of animal hus­
bandry and planting that influence household biogas in provinces were
also different. For example, the number of cattle is one of the main
factors that influence household biogas in Hainan, Hubei, Jiangsu,
Chongqing, Guangxi, and Fujian (Fig. 10a). The number of cattle and
pig, and planting areas of vegetables and tobacco all influenced house­
hold biogas (Fig. 10a,b,c,e).
The household biogas and its proportion in the total biogas produced
in rural China generally declined in general, but the opposite trend was
observed for the total biogas produced from biogas projects. Fig. 11
proves the above conclusions, and the same trends have also been re­
ported in the literature from the works of Chang et al. (2014) and Gu
et al. (2016). For example, Gu et al. (2016) found that the total biogas
production in China will continue to decrease mainly due to the
declining use of household biogas digesters in rural areas. The decline of
household biogas and its proportion in the total biogas production in
rural China was mainly affected by the outflow of rural labor (Zhong
et al., 2019), low economic benefits, and lack of follow-up services on
household biogas (Luo et al., 2021). Moreover, the scale and use of
household biogas digesters would further decrease due to village
consolidation, ecological migration, and division of prohibited areas for
breeding (Li et al., 2020).
In addition, Fig. 11 shows that the proportion of biogas produced
from these projects in the total biogas production in rural China grad­
ually increased over the past decade. Fig. 11 also demonstrates that the
proportion of biogas production from biogas projects in total biogas in
China increased from 5.122% in 2009 to 24.93% in 2018 compared with
5.79% calculated from 2007 to 2011 by Chang et al. (2014). However,
biogas productions from biogas projects including large-,medium-and
small-scale biogas projects, were computed, while the results in Chang
et al. (2014) only calculated large-and medium-scale biogas projects.
Moreover, the highest proportion of biogas production from biogas
projects in total biogas in China was found in Beijing (100%) according
to Chang et al. (2014) while the obtained results in this study indicated
Shanghai (100%) from 2009 to 2018 and Beijing (100%) from 2017 to
2018.
Biogas projects facilitate the utilization of energy, reduce the asso­
ciated labor costs, block environmental pollution, and increase the
production of fertilizers (Giwa et al., 2020). Therefore, these projects
deserve a dynamic development in rural China. Fig. 11 shows that
although the proportion of biogas production from these projects in the
total biogas production in rural China gradually increased over the past
decade. However, compared with Europe demonstrated by Scarlat et al.
(2018) and Xue et al. (2020), the proportion of biogas production from
biogas projects in total biogas in rural China was still low. Therefore, the
government should issue certain measures, laws, regulations, policies,
and financial subsidies to support the development of biogas projects in
rural China. The governments are aware of this problem. Thus, they
realized the implementation of rural biogas transformation and upgra­
ded pilot projects nationwide from 2015 to 2017 through the National
Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Affairs of the People’ s Republic of China. Such imple­
mentations resulted in the gradual development of biogas projects to­
ward large-scale ones (Li et al., 2020). The government should issue
certain measures, laws, regulations, policies, and financial subsidies to
support the development of biogas projects in rural China in the future.
4.2. Factors influencing household biogas
Consistent with previous research, a significant correlation was
Y. Li et al.
Fig. 10. Spatial distribution of household biogas per number of cattle (a), pig (b), and planting areas of vegetables (c), fiber (d), and tobacco (e).
Fig. 11. Biogas production from biogas project and its proportion in total biogas in China from 2009 to 2018.
reported between household biogas and the number of cattle and pigs
(Tang et al., 2010), thereby highlighting the latter as the main animal
husbandry factor that influences household biogas. The correlation co­
efficient between the number of pigs and household biogas was 0.9520
in Tang et al. (2010), while the calculated results in this study yielded an
average value of 0.7773 from 2009 to 2018. Tang et al. (2010) also
indicated that the annual household biogas was largely determined by
the number of cattle, pigs, and population. This finding might be due to
the common practice of raising pigs and cattle and the easy collection of
their manure in rural China. Particularly, pig breeding has always
played an important role in the development of agricultural production
in China (Zhao et al., 2019). China is the largest country of pig breeding
in the world (Zhong and Zhao, 2020), and its pork production accounts
for 49% the world’s total pork production, thereby accounting for more
than 60% of the total meat in China (Zhao et al., 2019). Meanwhile, the
planting areas of vegetables, oilseeds, and fiber all showed significant
correlations with household biogas, while those of vegetables, fiber, and
tobacco were identified as the main planting factors that influence
household biogas. This result agrees with those of previous studies (Yan
et al., 2021). For instance, Yan et al. (2021) showed that the planting
areas of vegetables and fiber were significantly correlated with biogas
production in rural areas, and its average correlation coefficient from
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025
2008 to 2017 was 0.7210 and 0.6440, respectively. This study also
demonstrated that the average correlation coefficient from 2009 to 2018
between the planting area of vegetable and household biogas, and that
of fiber and household biogas was 0.6794 and 0.6370, respectively.
However, the objects analyzed in this study were different in this paper
and the results in Yan et al. (2021), there different, indicating that
biogas production had a significant correlation with the planting areas
of vegetables and fiber. In addition, the obtained results showed that the
planting areas of tubers, tobacco, sugar, cotton, and oils were signifi­
cantly correlated with household biogas. This correlation might be due
to the straw supplied by the planting area of crops for household biogas
in rural China. The main biogas resource for household biogas digester
has long been animal manure and crop straw in rural China shown by Li
et al. (2009) and Chen et al. (2018).
GWR outperformed OLS in explaining the influence of the type of
animal husbandry and planting on household biogas. Specifically, GWR
can reflect the heterogeneity of household biogas across provinces and
considers the spatial non-stationarity of household biogas in each
province. Many studies also suggest that GWR outperforms OLS in
solving the spatial non-stationarity of regression variables showed by
Qiu et al. (2019), Koh et al. (2020), Li et al. (2020) and Chen and Lin
(2021). For example, Koh et al. (2020) demonstrated that GWR
Y. Li et al.
outperforms OLS in explaining the spatial relationship between the in­
dependent variables and groundwater NO3–N due to the spatial
non-stationarity of NO3–N data. Moreover, the household biogas in rural
China shows an obvious spatial agglomeration. Therefore, using GWR
for the regression analysis of the influence of animal husbandry on
household biogas was deemed reasonable.
This study showed that the number of cattle and pigs and the
planting areas of vegetables, tobacco, and fiber had good fitting effects
on household biogas considering the types of animal husbandry and
planting from global and local perspectives based on the OLS and GWR
models, respectively. This finding may be due to the manure from cattle
and pigs and the straw from planting areas of vegetables, tobacco, and
fiber, which are the main biogas resources for household biogas.
Moreover, the above results proved that number of cattle and pigs and
planting areas of vegetables, tobacco, and fiber had a significant cor­
relation with household biogas in rural China. Overall, increasing the
breeding scale of pigs and cattle and expanding the planting areas of
vegetables, fiber, and tobacco may effectively promote the development
of household biogas in rural China.
5. Conclusions and future directions
This study reveals the spatial-temporal differences of household
biogas and its proportion in the total biogas production in rural China
from 2009 to 2018 at the provincial scale. Sichuan, Yunnan, and Henan
all reported high household biogas from 2009 to 2018. The highest and
lowest household biogas was 0.2409 × 1010 m3 in Sichuan in 2015 and
0 m3 in Shanghai and Beijing from 2009 to 2018 and from 2017 to 2018,
respectively. Tibet had the highest proportion of 100% in 2015, whereas
Shanghai and Beijing had the lowest proportion of 0% from 2009 to
2018 and from 2017 to 2018, respectively.
The number of cattle and pigs and the planting areas of tubers,
vegetables, tobacco, oilseeds, sugar, and fiber all reported significant
correlations with household biogas. The types of animal husbandry and
planting that influence household biogas were also identified. The
number of cattle and pigs were identified as the main animal husbandry
factors, whereas the planting areas of vegetables, fiber, and tobacco
were identified as the main planting factors that influence household
biogas. The fitting effects revealed that GWR had higher R2 and adjusted
R2 values of 0.8620 and 0.8100, respectively, than those of OLS (0.6480
and 0.6220, respectively) in animal husbandry factors and had higher R2
and adjusted R2 values of 0.8400 and 0.7990, respectively, than those of
OLS (0.7190 and 0.6880, respectively) in planting factors. GWR could
reflect 63.20%–91.00% and 67.10%–88.70% of the total variation of
household biogas in animal husbandry and planting factors, respec­
tively, considering local R2.
The results of this work might guide the structural adjustment of
animal husbandry and planting. The proportion of pigs and cattle in the
total number of animals or that of planting areas of vegetables, fiber, and
tobacco in the total planting areas of crops could be improved to in­
crease household biogas in rural China. Moreover, the spatial planning
of household biogas could be optimized in accordance with the number
of pigs and cattle and the planting areas of vegetables, fiber, and tobacco
in a region. The results could also guide the government in formulating
policies to develop biogas production in different regions to alleviate the
energy crisis in rural China. In addition, links among biogas production
and animal husbandry and planting are established in accordance with
the results in this study to reduce environmental pollution pressure and
greenhouse gas emissions.
This study also has limitations despite obtaining important results.
First, many factors that influence household biogas, such as climatic
conditions (Chen et al., 2013), technologies (Giwa et al., 2020) and
socioeconomic status (Yan et al., 2021) are presented. This study only
investigated the influence of the types of animal husbandry and planting
on household biogas. Thus, future studies should identify which factors
mainly affect household biogas. Second, the limited availability of
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025
survey data from biogas farmers, such as their household biogas,
breeding scale, and animal husbandry and planting structures, poses an
important limitation for this study. Using such data can improve the
accuracy of the results. Third, the study of the types of animal husbandry
and planting that influence household biogas in China is only conducted
at the provincial scale. If this study could be performed at small
administrative scales, such as city, county, town, and village scales, in
the future, then the accuracy of the results could be obtained.
Conducting studies concerning household biogas considering the
sustainability point by using advanced sustainability assessment ap­
proaches, including life cycle assessment and exergy, is suggested in the
future. These approaches can evaluate biofuel production systems
effectively considering thermodynamic, economic, and environmental
aspects simultaneously. by Rosen (2018), Aghbashlo et al. (2021) and
Soltanian et al. (2020). For example, Soltanian et al. (2020) showed that
exergy-based approaches could supply important information on the
technical characteristics, environmental impacts, and economic costs of
lignocellulosic biofuel systems. The above results indicate that advanced
sustainability assessment approaches, such as life cycle assessment and
exergy, should be encouraged and promoted. Such promotion aims not
only to evaluate household biogas quantitatively and qualitatively but
also reduce effectively the impact of environment and human health in
the future.
In addition, conducting the latest techniques for enhancing biogas
production such as hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) (Ramahi et al.,
2021), biological strategies including upstream, mainstream, and
downstream approaches conducted by Tabatabaei et al. (2019) and
Tabatabaei et al. (2020), and pre-digestion with a hyperthermophilic
anaerobic bacterium (Hansen et al., 2021), should be suggested to
conduct in the future. For example, Ramahi et al. (2021) showed that
HTC post-treatment following anaerobic digestion (AD) would remark­
ably improve bioenergy production greatly. Tabatabaei et al. (2019) and
Tabatabaei et al. (2020) indicated that upstream, mainstream, and
downstream methods can significantly improve the quantity and quality
of the biogas production.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yaxing Li: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Investigation.
Bojie Yan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software. Yanfang Qin:
Supervision, Investigation. Wenjiao Shi: Software, Validation. Jingjie
Yan: Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research had been partly supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 41601601, 61971236, the
Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province under Grant
No.2020J01830, the Project funded by China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation under Grant No.2018M632348, and the Science and Tech­
nology project of Minjiang University under Grant No. MYK21013.
References
Abbas, I., Liu, J., Faheem, M., Farhan, M., Shaikh, S.A., 2020. Development and
performance evaluation of small size household portable biogas plant for domestic
use. Biomass Convers. Bior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00956-y.
Aghbashlo, M., Khounani, Z., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Gupta, V.K., Amiri, H.,
Lam, S.S., Morosuk, T., Tabatabaei, M., 2021. Exergoenvironmental analysis of
bioenergy systems: a comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 149,
111399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111399.
Y. Li et al.
Allah, W.E.A., Tawfik, M.A., Sagade, A.A., Gorjian, S., Metwally, K.A., 2021. Methane
production enhancement of a family-scale biogas digester using cattle manure and
corn stover under cold climates. Sustain. Energy Techn. 45, 101163. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seta.2021.101163.
Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, A.S., Charlton, M.E., 1996. Geographically weighted
regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr. Anal. 28 (4),
281–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1996.tb00936.x.
Cai, Y., Xing, Y., Hu, D., 2008. On sensitivity analysis. J. Beijing Normal Univ. (Nat. Sci.)
41 (1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0476-0301.2008.01.003.
Chang, I.S., Wu, J., Zhou, C., Shi, M., Yang, Y., 2014. A time-geographical approach to
biogas potential analysis of China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37, 318–333.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.033.
Chen, L., Zhao, L.X., Ren, C.S., Wang, F., 2012. The progress and prospects of rural biogas
production in China. Energy Pol. 51, 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2012.05.052.
Chen, L.H., Shu, B.R., Li, X., 2018. Resource estimation and comprehensive utilization
evaluation of agricultural waste of eastern China. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 46 (13),
251–255. https://doi.org/10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2018.13.058.
Chen, T.L., Lin, Z.H., 2021. Impact of land use types on the spatial heterogeneity of
extreme heat environments in a metropolitan area. Sustain. Cities Soc. 72, 103005.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103005.
Chen, Y., Hu, W., Sweeney, S., 2013. Resource availability for household biogas
production in rural China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25, 655–659. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.031.
Chen, Y., Hu, W., Chen, P., Ruan, R., 2017. Household biogas CDM project development
in rural China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.09.052.
Cheng, Y., Li, Y.P., Shi, Y.Y., Tang, C.Y., 2020. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of
diagenesis model parameters in large shallow lakes-A case study on nitrogen. J. Lake
Sci. 32 (6), 1646–1656. https://doi.org/10.18307/2020.0607.
Duan, R.J., Shen, T., Li, C.M., Fatima, N., Anser, M.K., 2021. Estimating the determinants
and spatial effects of electricity intensity in China. Energy Strateg. Rev. 35, 100651.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100651.
Gao, M.X., Wang, D.M., Wang, H., Wang, X.J., Feng, Y.Z., 2019. Biogas potential,
utilization and countermeasures in agricultural provinces:A case study of biogas
development in Henan Province, China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 99, 191–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.005.
Giwa, A.S., Ali, N., Ahmad, I., Asif, M., Guo, R.B., Li, L.F., Lu, M., 2020. Prospects of
China’s biogas:fundamentals, challenges and considerations. Energy Rep. 6,
2973–2987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.10.027.
Gu, L., Zhang, Y.X., Wang, J.Z., Chen, G., Battye, H., 2016. Where is the future of China’s
biogas? Review, forecast, and policy implications. Petrol. Sci. 13 (3), 604–624.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-016-0105-6.
Hansen, J.C., Aanderud, Z.T., Reid, L.E., Bateman, C., Hansen, C.L., Rogers, L.S.,
Hansen, L.D., 2021. Enhancing waste degradation and biogas production by pre-
digestion with a hyperthermophilic anaerobic bacterium. Biofuel Res. J. 31,
1433–1443. https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2021.8.3.
Hu, X.J., Ma, C.M., Huang, P., Guo, X., 2021. Ecological vulnerability assessment based
on ahp-psr method and analysis of its single parameter sensitivity and spatial
autocorrelation for ecological protection - a case of Weifang city, China. Ecol.
Indicat. 125, 107464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107464.
Koh, E.H., Lee, E.H., Lee, K.K., 2020. Application of geographically weighted regression
models to predict spatial characteristics of nitrate contamination: implications for an
effective groundwater management strategy. J. Environ. Manag. 268, 110646.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110646.
Kopczewska, K., Wiakowski, P., 2021. Spatio-temporal stability of housing submarkets.
tracking spatial location of clusters of geographically weighted regression estimates
of price determinants. Land Use Pol. 103 (2), 105292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2021.105292.
Li, A.Y., Zhao, P.X., Huang, Y.Z., Gao, K., Axhausen, K.W., 2020. An empirical analysis of
dockless bike-sharing utilization and its explanatory factors: case study from
Shanghai, China. J. Transport Geogr. 88, 102828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2020.102828.
Li, J.M., Li, B.F., Xu, W.Y., 2018. Analysis of the policy impact on China’s biogas industry
development. China Biogas 36 (5), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-
1166.2018.05.002.
Li, J.M., Xu, W.Y., Li, BiF., Zhang, D.L., 2020. The development dilemma and way out of
China’s biogas industry. Renew. Energ. Resour. 38 (12), 1563–1568. https://doi.
org/10.13941/j.cnki.21-1469/tk.2020.12.001.
Li, Y., Sun, Y.M., Li, D., Yuan, Z.H., Kong, X.Y., Xu, J., Dong, R.J., 2014. Analysis of
biogas industrial policy in China and foreign countries. Adv. New Renew. Energ. 2
(6), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2095-560X.2014.06.002.
Li, Y.B., Yang, G.H., Chu, L.l., Chen, Y., 2009. Estimation of resource extent of dominant
feedstock for household biogas in rural areas of China. Resour. Sci. 31 (2), 231–237.
https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1007-7588.2009.02.008.
Li, Y.P., Tang, C.Y., Yu, Z.B., Kumud, A., 2012. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of
large shallow lake hydrodynamic models. Adv. Water Sci. 23 (2), 271–277. htt
ps://doi.org/10.14042/j.cnki.32.1309.2012.02.013.
Liu, J., 2019. China’s renewable energy law and policy: a critical review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 99, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.007.
Lemma, B., Ararso, K., Evangelistac, P.H., 2021. Attitude towards biogas technology, use
and prospects for greenhouse gas emission reduction in southern Ethiopia. J. Clean.
Prod. 283, 124608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124608.
Lu, J.B., Gao, X.Y., 2021. Biogas:potential, challenges, and perspectives in a changing
China. Biomass Bioenergy 150 (1), 106127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2021.106127.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 332 (2022) 130025
Luo, E.G., Zhang, Y., Feng, Y.Y., Zhu, L.Z., 2021. The research on cours current situation
and future direction of China’s biogas industry development – Based on a typical
case anlysis of Luohe area, Henan Province. Chinese J. Agri. Resour. Regional Plann.
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.3513.S.20210713.1102.004.html.
Luo, T., Khoshnevisan, B., Huang, R.Y., Chen, Q., Mei, Z.L., Pan, J.T., Liu, H.B., 2020.
Analysis of revolution in decentralized biogas facilities caused by transition in
Chinese rural areas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 133, 110133. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2020.110133.
Ma, X.F., Yang, X., 2019. Spatio-temporal distribution of high-level tourist attractions
and spatial heterogeneity of its influencing factors in Western Hunan. J. Nat. Resour.
34 (9), 1902–1916. https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20190908.
Meyer, E.L., Overen, O.K., Obileke, K., Botha, J.J., Ngqeleni, V.D., 2021. Financial and
economic feasibility of bio-digesters for rural residential demand-side management
and sustainable development. Energy Rep. 7, 1728–1741. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egyr.2021.03.013.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 2020. Report
on Agricultural Resources, Environmental Protection and Rural Energy Development
in 2019. China Agriculture Press, Beijing.
Qiu, M.L., Cao, X.S., Zhou, J., Feng, X.L., Gao, X.C., 2019. Spatial differentiation and
impact factors of grain yield per hectare in Weibei plateau based on GWR model: a
case study of Binxian county. Shannxi. Sci. Agri. Sinica 52 (2), 273–284. https://doi.
org/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.02.007.
Ramahi, M.A., Keszthelyi-Szabó, G., Beszédes, S., 2021. Coupling hydrothermal
carbonization with anaerobic digestion: an evaluation based on energy recovery and
hydrochar utilization. Biofuel Res. J. 31, 1444–1453. https://doi.org/10.18331/
BRJ2021.8.3.4.
Rosen, M.A., 2018. Environmental sustainability tools in the biofuel industry. Biofuel
Res. J. 17, 751–752. https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2018.5.1.2.
Rural social and Economic Investigation Department of National Bureau of Statistics,
2010-2019. China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2010-2019). China Statistics Press,
Beijing.
Sarker, B.R., Wu, B., Paudel, K.P., 2019. Modeling and optimization of a supply chain of
renewable biomass and biogas: processing plant location. Appl. Energy 239,
343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.216.
Scarlat, N., Fahl, F., Dallemand, J.F., Monforti, F., Motola, V., 2018. A spatial analysis of
biogas potential from manure in Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 915–930.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.035.
Soltanian, S., Aghbashlo, M., Almasi, F., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Nizami, A., Ok, Y.
S., Su ShiungLam, S.S., Tabatabaei, M., 2020. A critical review of the effects of
pretreatment methods on the exergetic aspects of lignocellulosic biofuels. Energy
Convers. Manag. 212, 112792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112792.
Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., Valijanian, E., Panahi, H.K.S., Nizami, A.S.,
Ghanavati, H., Sulaiman, A., Mirmohamadsadeghi, S., Karimi, K., 2019.
A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas
production, part 2: mainstream and downstream strategies. Renew. Energy 146,
1392–1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.037.
Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., Valijanian, E., Panahi, H.K.S., Nizami, A.S.,
Ghanavati, H., Sulaiman, A., Mirmohamadsadeghi, S., Karimi, K., 2020.
A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas
production, part 1: upstream strategies. Renew. Energy 146, 1204–1220. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.047.
Tang, Y.C., Zhang, W.F., Ma, L., Zhang, F.S., 2010. Estimation of biogas production and
effect of biogas construction on energy economy. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 26
(3), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2010.03.048.
Uhunamure, S.E., Nethengwe, N.S., Tinarwo, D., 2019. Correlating the factors
influencing household decisions on adoption and utilisation of biogas technology in
South Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 107, 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.03.006.
Xu, J.B., Song, J., Li, B.C., Liu, D., Wei, D., Cao, X.S., 2020. Do settlements isolation and
land use changes affect poverty? evidence from a mountainous province of China.
J. Rural Stud. 76, 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.018.
Xue, S.R., Song, J.H., Wang, X.J., Shang, Z.Z., Sheng, C.J., Li, C.Y., Zhu, Y.F., Liu, J.Y.,
2020. A systematic comparison of biogas development and related policies between
China and Europe and corresponding insights. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 117,
109474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109474.
Yan, B.J., Yan, J.J., Li, Y.X., Qin, Y.F., Yang, L.J., 2021. Spatial distribution of biogas
potential, utilization ratio and development potential of biogas from agricultural
waste in China. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 126077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.126077.
Zhang, D., Zheng, Y., Wu, J.H., Li, B.Y., Li, J.P., 2020. Annual energy characteristics and
thermodynamic evaluation of combined heating, power and biogas system in cold
rural area of northwest China. Energy 192, 116522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2019.116522.
Zhao, J.W., Chen, Y.F., Yu, L., Yin, C.B., 2019. Spatial-temporal characteristics and
affecting factors of swine breeding industry in China. Econ. Geogr. 39 (2), 180–189.
https://doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2019.02.022.
Zhao, L., Zhang, Y.S., Jiao, X.Y., Wu, D., Wu, D.T., 2016. The spatial pattern and effect of
basic public service quality in Henan Province. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 36 (10), 1495–1504.
https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2016.10.006.
Zhong, B., Zhao, L.G., 2020. The growth effect of industrial agglomeration of hog
industry in China. Research Agri. Mod. 41 (2), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.13872/
j.1000-0275.2020.0027.
Zhong, S., Niu, S.W., Qiu, X., Wang, Y.P., 2019. Optimization simulation of medium-and
large-scale biogas projects and its evaluation of economic and environmental
efficiency. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 35 (4), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.11975/
j.issn.1002-6819.2019.04.029.