Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

An evaluation model for urban carrying capacity: A case study of

China's mega-cities
Yigang Wei a, b, Cui Huang b, *, Jing Li c, Lingling Xie d
a
School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing, China
b
School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
c
Department of Public Policy, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
d
Institute of Management Science and Engineering, Guangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanning, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: China experienced unprecedented urbanization development in the last two decades. During the rapid
Received 14 April 2015 urbanization, cities have been attracting large population inflows from rural areas, and concentrating a
Received in revised form wide range of social and economic activities. However, an over-concentration of population and human
27 October 2015
activities has lead to severe and diverse challenges for sustainable urban development, such as envi-
Accepted 28 October 2015
Available online 23 November 2015
ronmental degradation, poor infrastructure, and inadequate public services etc. Against this backdrop,
concepts within urban carrying capacity (UCC) have received growing attention. It provides local gov-
ernment and urban planners key conceptual underpinnings to improve urban sustainability. However,
Keywords:
Urban carrying capacity
there remain huge ambiguities in its definitions, implications, particularly measurable indicators, and
China's mega-cities analytic procedures. These deficiencies significantly hamper the effective implications of UCC concepts in
Sustainability routine urban management. Using the mean variance analysis method, this paper aims to establish an
Urban planning and management integrated UCC analytic framework to improve decision-making on sustainable urban land use and
Urban land use development. 30 representative indicators drawn from literature are selected to systematically evaluate
the UCC conditions. 30 provincial capital cities and municipalities in China are selected as data sample.
The results reveal several important findings. First, there exists a positive link between the city scale and
UCC. Second, this exists a geographical pattern that costal cities have a high UCC than the central and
western regions. Third, infrastructural and environmental factors are of salient weights in evaluating the
UCC. Through the broad validations in China's mega-cities, this system has demonstrated capabilities of
simplifying, appropriately quantifying, and evaluating the complex process of urban planning and
management towards sustainability.
© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Urbanization has been an important feature in the process of
human development all throughout history. This trend is often
associated with a sweeping population migrating from the coun-
tryside to the cities (McKinsey Global Institute, 2011). Onishi (1994)
summarized three features of a city that can attract a large popu-
lation in a densely developed area. First is the centrality of public
administration and private decision-making. For example, the
centrality of decisions in peripheral regions significantly reduces
the communication costs. Second is security for urban residents'
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cui_huang@163.com (C. Huang).
daily livings and commercial opportunities. And the third is higher
efficiency, due to a benefit of relatively easier cooperation and
concentration of various factors of production. From a resident's
perspective, these incentivizing features guarantee clear advan-
tages for living and doing business, relative to rural or suburban
areas. Therefore, attracted by the richer economic opportunities
that cities can provide, people migrate from the rural areas to cities
in search of better lives. Particularly in the last two centuries, cities
with fast advancements in economy, technology, and transport,
have contributed to unparalleled affluence and far better lives than
the rural areas of many countries. Nowadays, the urbanization
process has been increasing across the world. According to data
from the United Nations, a new city with 1.3 million inhabitants will
be built every week for the next four decades (Bentham, 2014).
Meanwhile, rapid urbanization forms an important impetus for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.10.025
0197-3975/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
88 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96
economic growth (Li & Yao, 2009). Therefore, urban areas are of
significant importance for the society since a large population and
substantial social and economic activities are concentrating there.
China is currently at the stage of rapid urbanization. Heikkila
and Xu (2013) have systematically analyzed the history, in-
centives, and means by Chinese government to promote the
development of urbanization. They argued that the Chinese gov-
ernment holds a “pro-urbanization stance”, i.e., the government is
proactively guiding and controlling this unprecedented urbaniza-
tion process. Promoting urbanization is not an end in and of itself,
but to serve the strategic goals of the government. Urbanization is a
centrally important step in China's reform and opening up and
socioeconomic development plans because the government treats
it as a strategy for driving economic growth (Heikkila & Xu, 2013).
China's present urbanization rate remains low and is not compat-
ible with its per capita income level (World Bank, 2014). The Chi-
nese government has thus committed to significantly promoting
the urbanization in the next two to four decades. World Bank
predicts that China's urbanization rate will increase consistently
from the current 50%e70% by 2030 (World Bank, 2014).
Backed by strong government willpower, China's urbanization
has been encouraged to grow on a fast and unprecedented scale. In
the past 35 years, China's urbanization increased rapidly from less
than 20% in 1978 to 52% in 2012, much faster than that of the U.S.
and U.K., although slightly slower than the rates of Japan and South
Korea from the same development phrases (World Bank, 2014).
Fig. 1 compares the urbanization process in China and U.S. The in-
cremental population in China's urban areas will reach 425.53
million from 2000 to 2030, compared with 93.13 million new urban
residents in U.S. in the same period, meaning that China's new city
dwellers will far exceed the total U.S. population.
With the fast-paced urbanization process, continuous congre-
gation of larger population, urban services, production, consump-
tion, and social wealth have been occurring in most cities around
the world. However, these factors have made cities vulnerable in
terms of achieving sustainable development and providing
comfortable living standards for urban inhabitants (Chen, Tao, &
Zhang, 2009). A host of urban symptoms induced by excessive
population inflows and overdevelopment of the urban areas have
been emerging and growing more severe (Abernethy, 2001; Oh,
Jeong, Lee, Lee, & Choi, 2005). Due to the worsening living envi-
ronments in urban areas, particularly in mega-cities, concerns
related to the urban carrying capacity (UCC) concept have often
been voiced when debating whether the current rate of urban
development has exceeded inherent limit of the city (Wei, Huang,
Lam, & Yuan, 2015). The issue of overladen urban carrying capac-
ity has become a widespread challenge, despite the immensity and
variety of global cities (Oh et al., 2005; Onishi, 1994).
Currently, China has 288 cities categorized at the prefectural
Fig. 1. Comparisons on urban-rural population in China and the U.S. Source: http://www.unhabitat.org/stats/Default.aspx (Accessed on 14 November 2013).
levels or above. According to the CEIC database in 2013, there have
been 31 cities with a population of 2e4 million, and 14 cities with a
population over 4 million. According to the Green Book of Small and
Medium-sized Cities released in 2010, cities with a population of
3e10 million are defined as mega-city in China. Since the mega-
cities have been the highest concentrated areas of people and hu-
man activities, resources, and environmental pollution (Liu, 2012),
they are thus more prone to the issues of overloaded UCC than
small and medium cities. Thus, the mega-city is especially subjec-
tive to the occurrence of various “urban diseases”, reflected in a
degrading environment, poor infrastructure, and insufficient public
services, etc. Hence, to develop a reliable UCC evaluation model is of
strategic importance to China's sustainable development. The
government has understood the importance of promoting urban
sustainability as a priority policy objective. The phrase “urban
carrying capacity improvement”, which has been permeating offi-
cial documents and regulations, has been fully institutionalized in
national development planning and policies (see Table 1).
Sustainable urban development may be defined as “a process of
synergetic integration and co-evolution among the great sub-
systems making up a city (economic, social, physical and environ-
mental), which guarantees the local population a non-decreasing
level of wellbeing in the long term, without compromising the
possibilities of development of surrounding areas and contributing
by this towards reducing the harmful effects of development on the
bio-sphere” (Camagni, 1998, p.4). Progressing sustainability is
essential responsibility for urban planning and development. The
UCC concept provides a useful theoretical foundation and meth-
odological base for guiding sustainable urban development. Ac-
cording to the UCC concept, there is a certain inherent limit on a
given urban area, beyond which will lead to irrecoverable changes,
degradation or damages to the environment (Liu & Borthwick,
2011). Therefore, a UCC assessment can provide an indication on
the maximum potential population, and also serve as an important
guide to the service load of the region, which should be maintained
above a specified/minimal/acceptable standard (Summers, 2004).
UCC has become a popular term in the field of urban planning
and management, environmental, and social studies. However,
there remain huge ambiguities on its definitions, implications, and
particularly, its measurable indicators and evaluative methods. The
elusiveness surrounding UCC concept is mainly attributed to the
integrative elements and properties associated with urban devel-
opment. These problems become inhibitors for the effective im-
plications of UCC concept in routine urban management and
planning. This study aims to develop an effective UCC evaluation
framework to fill the gap of previous studies. The evaluation model
can systematically assess the present state of UCC and identify its
deficient factors. The applicability of the model is then widely
demonstrated in China's 30 mega-cites. This research is of
 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96 89

Table 1a
Milestones of UCC improvement in national policy and regulations.

Year Policy and regulations Contents

2010 The 12th Five-year Plan The 12th Five-year Plan explicates the requirements for improving the comprehensive UCC, i.e. increasing
population density, avoiding excessive urban sprawls, optimizing land use structures, remedying various
“urban diseases”, improving the urban service and infrastructure, strengthening city management,
promoting ecological and humanistic environment, etc. ”
2006 The 11th Five-year Plan The 11th Five-year Plan raised the detailed requirements for China's urbanization i.e. “to promote urban
comprehensive carrying capacity”. The plan addresses that the scale and layout of urban development
should be scientifically designed, consistent to natural carrying capacity (such as water and land resources,
environmental endowments, geological conditions), economic development, employment potentials, and
urban services and infrastructure.”
2005 Notifications on strengthening formulation, examining, In January 2005, the Ministry of Construction require the local government to improve the comprehensive
and approval of urban master plan. UCC, by addressing the main tasks including resource conservation, ecological construction, and key
infrastructure projects.

Table 1b
Criteria for indicator selection.

Items Contents

i. “Scientific accuracy, operability, hierarchy, completeness and dynamic” (Yu & Mao, 2002, p.181).
ii. Representative and sensitive to the state of present conditions.
iii. Direct link between human's impacts and their causing activities and events (Button, 2002).
iv. Rich policy implications for forecasting the trends of changes.
v. Offering a meaningful ground for testing the relevant theories.
vi. Avoiding the repetitive information due to the inclusion of too many indicators.
vii. Reliably measurable and quantifiable (Button, 2002; Graymore et al., 2010).
viii. Ensuing the uniformity and consistency of indicators across different city prototypes (Button, 2002).

important theoretical and practical implications. 3. Relationships between UCC and urban sustainability

2. Development of the carrying capacity concept
Carrying capacity is conventionally expressed as the number of
individuals that a standard area of land can support over a long
period of time, in ecological studies. According to the logistic
growth model, animal population growth can be constrained to an
upper asymptote, i.e., the carrying capability. It suggests that there
exists a finite carrying capability for a given species, either the
optimum or maximum, and being close to this optimum level of
population density is secure for their future survival and prolifer-
ation (Campbell, 1998). An excessive population growth exceeding
this limit leads to dramatic negative impacts, manifested as over-
crowding and shortages of foods (Campbell, 1998). Therefore, the
carrying capacity concept provides guidance for a sustainable size
in population relative to the supporting ecosystem.
Likewise, there may exist a maximum or optimum level of
population size for the human society (Campbell, 1998). Thomas
Malthus firstly proposes human carrying capacity concept. It is
defined as the total size of human population that the earth or a
region can sustain without destroying the “natural, cultural, and
social environment” and damaging the perpetuity of future car-
rying capacity (Abernethy, 2001, p9; Wei et al., 2015). Natural en-
dowments are also vitally important for human carrying capacity.
For example, economic activities rely on the natural capitals
including the ecological services and natural resources. The
excessive use of natural capital beyond the regenerative capacity
will lead to the depletion in natural capital stock. Sustainability
necessitates humanity development within the world's biosphere
regenerative capacity. Ecological carrying capacity only considers
natural resources as a primary dimension for understanding car-
rying capacity. However, human carrying capacity concept consists
of more mad-made and complex factors such as social, economic,
cultural etc. aspects, making it different from the ecological car-
rying capacity.
There has been no consensus on the definitions of sustainability
or sustainable development. The World Commission on Environ-
ment and Development defined sustainable development as
“meeting the needs of current generations without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commission on Environment Development, 1987, p.8). Achieving
sustainable urban development is an ultimate goal that planners,
city managers, and residents seek. Thus, the task for addressing the
present needs without compromising regenerative capacity to
meet the demand raises a great challenge for planners and city
managers (World Commission on Environment Development,
1987). Integrating sustainability concepts in the realms of envi-
ronmental, social and economic concerns have played a centrally
important role in the formulation of urban management decision
and policies (Button, 2002). Organizations such as the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), United Na-
tions Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), the
World Trade Organization (WTO) have proposed various indicators
for assessing the status of sustainable development (Oh et al.,
2005). These indicators, as suggested by various organizations,
primarily focus on the natural environment such as air, water,
forest, and biodiversity and have yet adequately considered other
more comprehensive factors (Oh et al., 2005). In general, the
concept of sustainability often leads to substantial confusions, and a
need to understand how such a growth limit can be defined and
identified.
The concept of carrying capacity encompasses sustainability.
“Sustainability is a necessary and sufficient condition for a popu-
lation to be at or below carrying capacity” (Daily & Ehrlich, 1996,
p992). For achieving sustainability, carrying capacity assessment is
an important yardstick to gauge the level and state of urban sus-
tainability (Sarma et al., 2012), and thus to better guide urban
development. The carrying capacity concept also provides valuable
evaluation methods and measurable indicators for assessing
90 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96
sustainability of a region (Baldwin, 1985; Liu & Borthwick, 2011).
Graymore, Sipe, and Rickson (2010) support the recognition of
carrying capacity as a “sustainable threshold”. If the population
exceeds this threshold of carrying capacity, it leads to negative
impacts on the integrity, function, productivity, and resilience of
the social, economic, and ecological supporting systems (Graymore
et al., 2010; Yue, Tian, Liu, & Fan, 2008), and the damage could be
irreversible and even calamitous. UCC helps determine the optimal
level of population growth and urban development that the envi-
ronment in a specified locality can support without degrading long-
term sustainability. It also reminds the society to what extent
natural and man-made resources, in terms of quantity and quality,
should be adequately maintained above a specified standard.
4. Determining components of UCC
The UCC concept derives from the above-mentioned carrying
capacity theories, but with a special focus on the urban setting. UCC
is of practical significance for urban sustainable development. For
example, Onishi (1994) argued that “a city cannot expand infinitely,
but has limits on population and economic activities, alongside
with which the citizens can utilize urban facilities and services
comfortably” (p. 40). Intuitively, a city with a higher UCC leads to
“its residents love to live in and take pride in being part of it”, where
the environment makes its residents physically, spiritually, and
culturally devoted to the city (Wang, 2013, p.13). Some researchers
have attempted to provide clear definitions of UCC. Onishi (1994),
for example, defined UCC as human activities engaged in the city at
a comfortable level. Since comfort is difficult to be judged objec-
tively, UCC can be more precisely defined as an adequate supply of
man-made and natural resources for demands of the public (Onishi,
1994). Likewise, Joardar (1998) and Oh et al. (2005) mainly pay
attention to the physical or infrastructural factors of a city by
assessing them against acceptable norms and standards.
Sustainable development necessitates harmonious and
balanced relationship among natural resources, bio-ecology, de-
mographic growth, and human socioeconomic activities. As a
yardstick for measuring urban sustainability, UCC is also a multi-
dimensional assessment (Jin, Xu, & Yang, 2009). However, previ-
ous definitions, either focusing on infrastructure or urban ecology,
seem fragmented and incomplete (Sarma et al., 2012; Summers,
2004; Tan, Shi, & Sun, 2008). This study adopts the definition of
UCC as the limits of sustainable urban development from the
perspective of five determining components: infrastructure and
urban services, environmental impacts and natural resources,
public perception,1 institutional setting, and society supporting
capacity2 (Wei et al., 2015) (See Fig. 2). The measurable criteria for
each dimension respectively are sufficient and well-maintained
infrastructure and urban service, green environment and endur-
able resource uses, perceptual (both psychological and visual)
satisfaction, institutional viability, economic affluence.
5. Limitation of existing literature
Through an extensive literature review, the limitation of the
previous study is summarized as follows:
1 5
Public perception refers to the behavioral psychology perceived by the urban
residents, such as senses, attitudes, anticipations etc. towards the overall im-
provements of the urban settings.
2
Society supporting capacity is defined as the economic, fiscal and technological
capacity of a society to improve its UCC by means of proactive investment.
Fig. 2. The components of UCC.

Yue et al. (2008) proposed a general definition of “carrying ca-
pacity” as the maximum population of human, livestock, or wild
animals that can be supported indefinitely without generating
permanent damage to the earth. Presently, based on different
underlying theories and emphasis, carrying capacity studies
have been conducted in five research strands: tourism/recrea-
tional carrying capacity,3 safety or disaster carrying capacity4
(e.g. Chen et al., 2009), ecological carrying capacity,5 human
carrying capacity6 (Graymore et al., 2010), and UCC (Li et al.,
2009; Liu, 2012; Oh et al., 2005; Onishi, 1994; Sarma et al.,
2012). An integration of these above analytical dimensions is
necessarily important to establish a complete UCC evaluation
framework for city managers. However, this has yet been
appropriately addressed.

Current UCC related studies have been conducted alongside two
strands (Liu, 2012), either concentrating on the single factor
carrying capacity of a limited resource such as water and land, or
focusing on the comprehensive carrying capacity by encom-
passing the economic, ecological, and social aspects of human
activities. Currently, researchers have paid more attentions to
the physical factors during UCC assessment, particularly
focusing on infrastructure, pollution, and resources availability,
but leaving socio-economic and institutional factors out of the
analysis. Therefore, single carrying capacity can only provide
partial understandings of urban sustainability. A comprehensive
perspective is adopted in this study. Comprehensive UCC should
completely cover all aspects of economy, environment and so-
ciety (Liu, 2012). How to coordinate the relationships between
various UCC elements while ensuring their consistent im-
provements is an important issue.

Traditional economic disciplines are limited in scope for inte-
grating the environmental components and ecological signifi-
cance into the economy (Pillet & Odum, 1984). The
environmental components, unlike their economic counterparts
3
Tourism carrying capacity focuses on the negative impacts of tourisms on the
destinations from ecological, physical, and experiential aspects.
4
With the fast urbanization pace, continuous congregation of population, urban
services, production and wealth have been occurring in most cities of the world,
and these factors make those cities vulnerable when sudden disasters happen
(Chen et al., 2009). Disaster carrying capability refers to the capacity of a city or
region to predict, prevent, rescue, or recover from disasters and accidents (Guo &
Liu, 2003). These disasters and accidents broadly include “natural disasters, in-
dustrial accidents, and public health and social safety incidents” (Chen et al., 2009,
p.50).
Based on biometric perspective, ecological carrying capacity speculated on the
probable maximum number of species a specific region could indefinitely support.
6
Human carrying capacity refers to the maximum scale of human's consump-
tions of renewable resources, which can be indefinitely supported without causing
irreversible damage to a defined region.
 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96 91

such as human labors and capital investment, are usually not From a different classification perspective, Beijing, Shanghai, and
valued their true worth by the economy and the market Guangzhou are first-tier cities. They are the most economically
(Campbell, 1998). Since the neglect of real value by the market, developed cities in China. The rest are second-tier cities, which are
ecological systems that contribute to the creation of products of significant importance to the associated regions and provinces in
and services are vulnerable to depletion without supplementary terms of economic, social, political aspects. This study uses the data
or remedial provisions being made for their consequent of 2011, which is sourced from published consensus, including the
replacement and rehabilitation (Campbell, 1998; Repetto, 1992). China City Statistical Yearbook 2012, China Statistical Yearbook For
However, as summarized by Oh et al. (2005), current related Regional Economy 2012, and the China Urban Construction Statistical
studies primarily focus on environmental dimension, rather Yearbook 2011.
than a holistic perspective integrating socioeconomic, environ-
mental, and institutional lenses.

Current UCC assessment studies seem rather subjective and 6.2. Research process
rudimentary, while the complexities involved require a more
scientific and objective means. The existing literature still lacks Fig. 4 illustrates the procedure for the development of UCC
of quantitative-based framework for UCC assessment. There are
three key reasons for the scarcity of empirical studies. First,
carrying capacity assessment is both a quantitative and quali-
tative study (Summers, 2004). The highly subjective attributes
makes it particularly impossible to quantify and calculate in any
accurate way (Sarma et al., 2012). Second, assessment on the
UCC is complicated by the numerous factors, large varieties of
natural and man-made resources, etc. Third, UCC assessment
should ideally address the variability in technology, institutions,
and human lifestyle (Sarma et al., 2012).

6. Data and research methodology

6.1. Data and investigated cities

This study evaluates the UCC conditions of 30 provincial capital

cities and municipalities in China. Fig. 3 provides the geographic
positions of the cities investigated. The four municipalities consist
of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing. They are directly
governed by the central government in the administrative order. Fig. 4. Research procedure.

Fig. 3. Map of Chinese cities investigated.

92 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96

evaluation model. It mainly consists of three steps i.e. indicators Table 3

selection, evaluation method determination, and data processing. The major methods for determining indicator weights.

Subjective-based Objective-based

6.3. Indicator selection A$J$Klee method Deviation method

Delphi Mean-Variance Analysis
Analytical Hieratical Process (AHP) Principle Components Analysis (PCA)
In general, various estimate techniques have demonstrated in a
BP Neutral Network
general ways that some determining factors are involved. For a
critical analysis, several rules for variables selection is determined
through literature review (See Table 1). Based on the selection
principles, 56 indicators were originally selected. Then, in reference
methods, such as Analytical Hieratical (AHP), Principle Components
to expert consulting and a correlation test, a final 30 indicators
Analysis (PCA), etc. (See Table 3). These methods can be classified
were developed into an evaluation system. The system consists of
into either subjective or objective-based approach. The main ad-
five subcategories of variables, i.e., economic, resources, environ-
vantages and limitations of each quantitative method are compared
mental, infrastructural, and transportation. Due to the important
in Table 4. Generally, the results by objective-based methods will
role of transportation for a mega-city, this study separates trans-
not be affected by the whim or subjective opinions of the investi-
portation from infrastructure as an individually focused analytical
gated individuals, and therefore leads to objective estimation re-
dimension.
sults. To select the appropriate evaluation method, the rationales
and features of sustainable urban development should be consid-
6.4. Research methodology ered. The methodology should be effective in identifying the
determining limitation of urban sustainability, and be useful to
Related studies have provided a wide range of evaluation

Table 2
Indicator system.

Sector Indicators & unit Attributes Data source

Economic X1-Urban registered unemployment rate (%)  a

X2-Per capita disposable income of urban households þ a
X3-Per capita Fiscal income (Yuan) þ b
(X3 ¼ Fiscal income/population)
X4-Per capita GDP (Yuan) þ b
X5-Annual GDP growth rate þ b
Resources X6- Per capita water supply (ton): þ b
(X6 ¼ Total water supply of urban districts/total urban population)
X7-Per capita daily domestic water consumption (liter)  c
X8-Per capita constructive land (m2) þ b
(X8 ¼ urban constructive land/total urban population)
X9-Per capita gas supply (m3) þ b
(X9 ¼ Total gas supply in urban districts/total urban population)
X10-Per capita domestic electricity consumption (kwh)  b
(X10 ¼ Total domestic electricity consumption in urban districts/total urban population)
Environmental X11- industrial wastewater discharged per 10,000 Yuan GRP (ton)  b
(X11 ¼ Total volume of industrial wastewater discharged*10,000/GRP)
X12- industrial CO2 emissions per 10,000 Yuan GDP (kg)  b
(X12 ¼ Total volume of industrial CO2 emissions*10,000/GRP)
X13-The ratio of industrial solid waste which is comprehensively utilized þ b
X14- The ratio of sewage treated (%) þ c
X15-Living garbage treatment rate þ c
X16-The number of days with air quality above Grade-2 standard per years þ b
X17-Per capita green area (m2) þ b
(X17 ¼ Green areas of urban district/urban population)
X18-Green coverage rate of urban built-up areas (%) þ b
Infrastructural X19-Number of hospital beds per 10,000 persons: þ b
(X19 ¼ Total hospital beds*10,000/total population)
X20-Per capita floor space of urban residents (m2) þ a
X21- The density of drainage pipe in urban built-up areas (km/km2) þ c
X22-water access rate (%) þ c
X23-gas access rate (%) þ c
X24-Number of Internet per 10,000 persons (user) þ b
(X24 ¼ Urban Internet users*10,000/total population)
X25- Number of mobile phone users per 10,000 persons (user) þ b
(X25 ¼ Urban mobile phone*10,000/total population)
X26-Number of fixed telephone users per 10,000 persons (user): þ b
X26 ¼ Urban fixed telephone users*10,000/total population
Transport X27-Number of bus per 10,000 persons (unit) þ d
X28-Number of private cars per 10,000 persons (unit):  a
X28 ¼ Number of private cars*10,000/total population
X29-Per-capita urban road areas (m2) þ b
X30- Highway density (km/km2): þ a
X30 ¼ Length of highway/land area

Note: a refers to data sourced from China Statistical Yearbook for Regional Economy 2012; b refers to data sourced from China City Statistical Yearbook 2012; c refers to data
sourced from the China Urban Construction Statistical Yearbook 2011; d refers to data sourced from (Liu, 2012); þ indicates benefit indicator that is the bigger the better; -
indicates cost indicator that is the bigger the worse.
 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96 93

Table 4
The pros and cons of qualitative-based approaches.

Approach Strength Limitations

Delphi Expert's experience and opinions are solicited by means of brainstorming. The estimation results are highly subjective to
evaluators' judgments.
AHP The method combines the qualitative and quantitative merits and provides a multi-dimensional Expert's opinions may subjectively affect the
analysis. results.
Principle The statistical methods can effectively summarize the multiple variables to a limited number of The evaluation relies on exigent data quality.
Components synthesized indices, and avoids the correlation among these indices.
Analysis (PAC)
BP Neutral Network The method leads to a mutual evolution process with relatively objective results reflecting the real A large number of training sample data are
state. essential for appropriate evaluation.
Mean-Variance This method leads to high-accuracy estimation results and the underling rationales are easy for The estimation results are sensitive to the
Analysis understandings. quality of historical data.

Note: A$J$Klee method is a derivative from AHP approach. The characteristics of A$J$Klee method are in reference to AHP.

improve the UCC. Table 4 summarizes the cons and pros of each

 1X n
E Ij ¼ E Ij ¼ y (3)
method. This study determines the weight of each individual in- n i¼1 ij
dicator based on two basic principles regarding conceptual
framework and data quality: i) prefer objective-based approach to
subjective-based approach; ii) prefer a wider range of indicators/
Mean square error of Ij:
indicator system to a few representative variables. Principle i) ex-
cludes the methods of Delphi and AHP, and Principle ii) excludes
the methods of PAC and BP Neutral Network. The Mean-Variance vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u n 
Analysis method is thus chosen for its accessibility for a general
 uX
2
s Ij ¼ t yij  E Ij (4)
stakeholder of urban development and high-accuracy estimation i¼1
results.

6.5. Data processing
Weight coefficient of Ij:

6.5.1. Dimensionless standardization ,

 X n

The indicators are grouped into two types, i.e. “benefit in- u4 ¼ s Ij s Ij (5)
dicators” and “cost indicators” (see Table 2). The former refers to j¼1
the ones that result in improving carrying capacity with their
values increasing. “Cost indicator” is on behalf of deteriorating The aggregate weights of each hieratical levels are derived by
carrying capacity with their values increasing, such as CO2 emis- adding the weight coefficients of subcategory indicators (see
sion, wastewater discharged, etc. The first step for data analysis is to Table 5). The estimation results are derived by means of multi-
conduct the dimensionless standardization to remove the data objective linear weighting function as Equation (6):
contamination issues due to different units indicators among
X
m
indicators. RA ðwÞ ¼ yij ui ði ¼ 1; 2; 3……::; nÞ (6)
For the group of “benefit indicators”, data is transformed by i¼1
equation (1):



aÞ yij ¼ xij  xjmin = xjmax  xjmin i ¼ 1; 2; 3; …; n; j 7. Results and discussion
¼ 1; 2; 3; …; m (1)
Table 5 shows the weights of the evaluative indicator system.
For the group of “cost indicators”, data is transformed by Among the five key UCC subcategories, infrastructural and envi-
equation (2): ronmental aspectsdwith a statistical weight of 0.260 and 0.259


 respectivelydare the most important determining factors, fol-
bÞ yij ¼ xjmax  xij = xjmax  xjmin i ¼ 1; 2; 3; …; n; j lowed by resources and economic factors. Transportation has
¼ 1; 2; 3; …; m (2) lowest contribution to urban carrying capacity in our model.

Note: xjmin and xjmin respectively refers to the minimal value and maximal
7.1. Urban infrastructure
value of Ij .
After the dimensionless processing, the conformity and consis-
Urban infrastructure, such as utilities, communication, health-
tency of data across different indicator units is ensured.
care, amenity facilities, are essentially important for sustainable
urban development and comfortable resident's living. It is the basic
6.5.2. Mean variance analysis
responsibility of the local government to provide versatile,
This study uses the method of Mean Variance Analysis to
adequate, and well-maintained infrastructural facilities. Due to the
determine the relative weights of each individual indicator. The
data limitation, this study only investigates healthcare (determined
analysis procedure consists of three steps (Equations (3)e(5)).
by the number of hospital beds), housing, public utility, and
communication factors. Various age groups may have different

Sample mean:
preferences regarding their infrastructure needs: the elderly may
94 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96

Table 5
The weight of indicator system.

Sector Evaluative areas Indicators Weight

Economic (0.177) Employment (0.034) X1-Urban registered unemployment rate (%) 0.034
Affluence (0.07) X2-Per capita disposable income of urban households 0.037
X3-Per capita Fiscal income (Yuan) 0.033
Economic Scale (0.038) X4-Per capita GDP (Yuan) 0.038
Growth (0.034) X5-Annual GDP growth rate 0.034
Resources (0.180) Water (0.074) X6- Per capita water supply (ton) 0.030
X7-Per capita daily domestic water consumption (liter) 0.044
Land (0.037) X8-Per capita constructive land (m2) 0.037
Energy (0.068) X9-Per capita gas supply (m3) 0.031
X10-Per capita domestic electricity consumption (kwh) 0.037
Environmental (0.259) Pollution (0.068) X11- industrial wastewater discharged per 10,000 Yuan GDP (ton) 0.039
X12- industrial CO2 emissions per 10,000 Yuan GDP (kg) 0.029
Treatment (0.133) X13-The ratio of industrial solid waste which is comprehensively utilized 0.040
X14- The ratio of sewage treated (%) 0.034
X15-Living garbage treatment rate 0.029
X16-The number of days with air quality above Grade-2 standard per years 0.030
Green (0.057) X17-Per capita green area (m2) 0.025
X18-Green coverage rate of urban built-up areas (%) 0.032
Infrastructural (0.260) Healthcare (0.029) X19-Number of hospital beds per 10,000 persons 0.029
Housing (0.034) X20-Per capita floor space of urban residents (m2) 0.034
Utility (0.104) X21- The density of drainage pipe in urban built-up areas (km/km2) 0.029
X22-water access rate (%) 0.037
X23-gas access rate (%) 0.038
Communication (0.092) X24-Number of Internet per 10,000 persons (user) 0.030
X25- Number of mobile phone users per 10,000 persons (user) 0.027
X26-Number of fixed telephone users per 10,000 persons (user) 0.035
Transport (0.126) X27-Number of bus per 10,000 persons (unit) 0.031
X28-Number of private cars per 10,000 persons (unit) 0.031
X29-Per-capita urban road areas (m2) 0.036
X30- Highway density (km/km2) 0.029

consider availability to healthcare services as most important. The
working population may prioritize housing conditions and public
utilities. Younger generations may be more dependent on
communication access than other age groups.
7.2. Environment
Environment is another important dimension for UCC monitoring
and evaluation. The environment is an envelope around human ac-
tivities (Abernethy, 2001). The environment supplies essential inputs
to economic production and consumption, and also has to incorpo-
rate the waste generated. This study mainly focuses on the pollution
discharged and associated treatment effect by man-made phenom-
enon. Pollution indicators include the industrial wastewater and CO2
emission. Pollution treatment variables mainly consist of the treat-
ment rates of various wastes. Green areas, recognized as an impor-
tant environmental asset, are included in the evaluation.
7.3. Resource
sustainable resource consumption.
7.4. Economics
The concept of UCC cannot be understood in isolation from
economic dimension of the urban environment. Economic vitality
and diversity is an essential feature of urban sustainability. The key
mission of the effective daily function of a city is to promote eco-
nomic well-being, which ensures a high quality of life and is
fundamental for the capability of urban services and facilities
provision. Economic conditions in this study is systematically
represented by several areas of variables, such as employment,
affluence of the citizens, economic scale, and growth rate.
7.5. Transportation
Transportation is also investigated in the study. In terms of data
availability, buses represent public transportation; the conditions
of road and private cars are also taken into account.

Resource is also treated as a key subcategory in the UCC indi-
cator evaluation system. Resources should not be exploited faster
than they are regenerated or produced. Resources in this study refer
to both the natural and man-made resources, including land, water,
energy, all crucial to the city development and the lives of urban
residents. Introducing the important concept of “appropriated
carrying capacity” is necessary. “Appropriated carrying capacity”
refers to import carrying capacity (i.e., resources) from remote
places to sustain the urban development of the destination city. In
this study, “appropriated carrying capacity” concept is considered.
For example, water, gas, and electricity supply are often partially
outsourced through domestic or even international trade. Beijing,
as a water-deficient city, has to divert substantial water resources
for nearby regions. Therefore, to ensure sustained resources supply
and efficient utilization are two indispensable factors for
8. Discussion and conclusions
Table 6 shows each city's rank in terms of their current UCC
conditions. Both the comprehensive UCC and individual UCC are
presented. Major findings are as follows:
Firstly, Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing and Shanghai are the
highest-ranking cities. Their high UCC is substantially supported by
their strong economic and infrastructural strength. For example,
although Beijing suffers from the poor transportation and a lack of
water resources, it performs best in terms of economic develop-
ment. Strong economic capacity is fundamental for government to
proactively enhance UCC by means of direct investment and im-
ported carrying capacity. In addition, economic affluence, as shown
by low unemployment rates and high disposable income of urban
household, can ensure the high material standards of living of the
 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96 95

Table 6
The UCC Ranks of mega-city in China.

Rank UCC Economic Resources Environmental Infrastructural Transport

Beijing 0.617 0.121 0.098 0.177 0.177 0.044

Guangzhou 0.598 0.118 0.050 0.176 0.180 0.073
Nanjing 0.597 0.097 0.074 0.193 0.152 0.081
Shanghai 0.589 0.100 0.078 0.181 0.167 0.062
Wuhan 0.553 0.065 0.087 0.171 0.147 0.083
Changsha 0.549 0.092 0.050 0.199 0.138 0.070
Shenyang 0.546 0.075 0.081 0.196 0.137 0.056
Urumqi 0.545 0.054 0.126 0.154 0.182 0.029
Jinan 0.545 0.063 0.084 0.186 0.134 0.078
Hefei 0.543 0.057 0.078 0.192 0.115 0.100
Hangzhou 0.542 0.104 0.050 0.158 0.168 0.061
Tianjin 0.541 0.108 0.087 0.158 0.134 0.054
Haikou 0.536 0.062 0.060 0.196 0.161 0.057
Chengdu 0.514 0.068 0.066 0.185 0.126 0.069
Changchun 0.512 0.049 0.096 0.182 0.112 0.074
Fuzhou 0.507 0.072 0.048 0.187 0.130 0.070
Nanchang 0.489 0.049 0.072 0.183 0.110 0.075
Taiyuan 0.481 0.042 0.098 0.152 0.146 0.044
Xian 0.472 0.054 0.057 0.163 0.139 0.059
Yinchan 0.470 0.043 0.128 0.115 0.118 0.066
Hohhot 0.467 0.073 0.114 0.123 0.106 0.051
Kunming 0.462 0.066 0.100 0.138 0.104 0.053
Shijiazhuang 0.454 0.033 0.094 0.125 0.114 0.089
Zhengzhou 0.444 0.074 0.080 0.151 0.090 0.048
Nanning 0.392 0.036 0.054 0.151 0.095 0.056
Harbin 0.379 0.044 0.079 0.116 0.091 0.049
Chongqing 0.372 0.052 0.073 0.136 0.065 0.045
Guiyang 0.363 0.055 0.043 0.159 0.066 0.040
Lanzhou 0.355 0.044 0.097 0.105 0.056 0.054
Xining 0.321 0.028 0.081 0.089 0.097 0.026

urban residents, even though it may also indicate higher work
pressure and longer working hours.
Secondly, cities in eastern regions generally have high UCC
rankings. Most of the low-ranked cities are located in central and
western parts of China. Eastern cities generally perform well in
terms of economic and infrastructural development, since they are
major beneficiaries of reform and opening policies that were
initiated from the eastern coastal regions. In the strand of literature
on regional disparity, it is demonstrated that China's economic
inequality is attributed to various factors, i.e., favorable government
policy for coastal regions, unequal infrastructure development, la-
bor market distortion, and imbalanced migration pattern. In recent
years, such disparity seems to be lessened due to the Chinese
government's “Western Development Strategy” (Fan & Sun, 2008).
However, our estimation suggests that UCC still bears a pattern
where coastal regions are more attractive to inland regions.
Whether the “One Belt (Silk Road Economic Belt) and One Road
(21st Century Maritime Silk Road)” projects will have significant
impact on regional disparity in economic growth and infrastructure
development remains debatable, but labor markets and migration
patterns cannot be altered easily. Hence large cities located in the
eastern coastal regions would be first choices for university grad-
uates, rural and inland migrants to reside. And ironically, megacity
problems such as air pollution, traffic jams, and expensive housing
may persist in high-ranked UCC cities for the foreseeable future.
Thirdly, the study shows a positive link between the city scale
and UCC. By definition, UCC indicates how much a city can hold its
population, under a variety of economic, social and environmental
constraints. Although there is no causal relationship between city
scale and UCC by definition, our results suggest that the largest
cities, including Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Wuhan (China's
four most densely populated cities, each with over 10 million
people) also rank in the top five of the UCC evaluation. It is con-
jectured that a larger population scale leads to the more economic
and efficient human activities patterns: Larger cities tend to have
urban agglomeration effect, which increases labor demand for
high-tech or high-skilled workers. Better urban public infrastruc-
ture facilitates business activities and improves labor productivity
too, which contributes to the efficient operation of cities (Eberts &
McMillen, 1999). It is therefore not surprising that larger cities also
rank top in UCC, although the hazard of urban sprawl cannot be
ignored.
Fourth, environmental capacity has a salient impact factor in
evaluating a lively and attractive mega-city. According to Chen et al.
(2013), life expectancies in northern China (considered north of the
Huai River) are about 5.5 years lower than in southern China
(considered south of the Huai River), due to an increased incidence
of cardiorespiratory mortality caused by free provision of coal for
boilers for winter heating. Our model concurs that in terms of
environmental capacity, cities in southern China has 23% higher
average rate than cities in northern China. Indeed, industrial carbon
emission per 10,000 yuan GRP (ton) is in the north is on average
11% higher than in the south, thus exerting more negative impact
on environmental capacity. The number of days with air quality
above Grade 2 standard per years in the south is on average 27%
higher than that in the north.
In view of the individual subcategory rankings, several other
findings appear as follows.
First, economic performance is an important determining factor
for UCC conditions. In general, economic strength shows a positive
relationship with UCC performance. Beijing shows the strong eco-
nomic strength. It ranks the lowest in unemployment rate, the third
highest in average household disposable income, and the most
abundant in fiscal income per capita, although the GRP growth rate
is the lowest.
Second, in terms of resource carrying capacity, most of the top-
ranked UCC cities do not have consistently high levels of resource
endowment. It suggests that the safe and adequate supply of
96 Y. Wei et al. / Habitat International 53 (2016) 87e96
resources is a short board for these high ranked mega cities.
Interestingly, some of the low-ranked cites shows a high level of
resource endowment. For example, Yinchuan and Hohhot, ranked
20th and 21st, have the highest and third highest resource capacity.
The imbalanced distribution between resource endowment and
UCC suggests low efficiency in the allocation between natural
capital and human capital, a prevailing problem underlying China's
regional inequality. Although the central government has endeav-
ored to attract capital flows from coastal to inland regions, most of
the money has poured into the real estate sector rather than in-
dustrial and manufacturing sectors. This capital flow trend gener-
ates a growing property bubble, which is featured by China's “ghost
cities” (marked by extremely high residential vacancy rates),
particularly in inland and western provinces. Since these inland
cities lack prosperous economic conditions and lag in UCC rankings,
it is difficult to attract prospective enterprises but easy to attract
speculators. This further lowers the efficiency of capital allocation,
resulting in a chain of actions and reactions in which larger cities
become even larger while smaller cities become less competitive.
Third, in terms of transportation, Hefei performs best, which is
followed by Shijiazhuang and Wuhan. Beijing is ranked the forth
lowest. Although Beijing has the largest number of bus per pita and
a relatively high road density, the highest per capita private car
ownership leads to a deficiency in road space and traffic conges-
tions. Considering sustainable transportation strategy for a smart
city, the government could control the private car ownership and
encourage green and high-efficiency carpooling at first glance, and
propose different measures which fit different cities: For middle
and small sized cities with lower work pace, reducing vehicle miles
travelled by car, promoting shorter distances and encouraging all
modes of transport such as walk and bicycling are feasible solu-
tions. For large cities with an intense work pace, the technological
transition to low carbon emission transport system would not only
enhance the efficiency of traffic regulation but also reduce air
pollutants.
The concept of sustainable urban development is receiving wide
recognition. The findings in this study may assist city managers in
identifying problems and then in finding means to make im-
provements. Meager government investment and distribution of
resources should be more fairly invested in the sectors mentioned
above to improve the urban sustainability. This research still re-
mains limited. The analytic dimensions mainly consist of the eco-
nomic and physical aspects of UCC, due to the limits of available
data. Other important factors such as technological, institutional,
and perceptual factors have been rarely integrated. Future studies
should conduct wider investigations on the perceptual and insti-
tutional aspects of UCC when given an improvement in data
availability.
Acknowledgment
The first author would like to thank the China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation (Grant No.: 2014M550755) and the Chinese
Academy of Engineering (Grant No.: 2013-XZ-25) for the financial
support. The fourth author would like to thank Key Laboratory of
Carrying Capacity Assessment for Resource and Environment, the
Ministry of Land and Resources P.R.C for the financial support
(Grant No.: CCA2015.06).
References
Abernethy, V. D. (2001). Carrying capacity: the tradition and policy implications of
limits. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 23, 9e18.
Baldwin, J. H. (1985). Environmental planning and management. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Bentham, J. (2014). The scenario approach to possible futures for oil and natural gas.
Energy Policy, 64, 87e92.
Button, K. (2002). City management and urban environmental indicators. Ecological
Economics, 40(2), 217e233.
Camagni, R. (1998). Sustainable urban development: definition and reasons for a
research programme. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 10(1),
6e27.
Campbell, D. E. (1998). Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional
sustainability- an example using the state of Maine. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment, 51, 531e569.
Chen, Y., et al. (2013). Evidence on the impact of sustained exposure to air pollution
on life expectancy from China's Huai River policy. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 110(32), 12936e12941.
Chen, G., Tao, L., & Zhang, H. (2009). Study on the methodology for evaluating urban
and regional disaster carrying capacity and its application. Safety Science, 47(1),
50e58.
Daily, G. G., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1996). Socioeconomic equity, sustainability, and earth's
carrying capacity. Ecological Applications, 6(4), 991e1001.
Eberts, R. W., & McMillen, D. P. (1999). Agglomeration economies and urban public
infrastructure. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 3, 1455e1495.
Fan, C. C., & Sun, M. (2008). Regional inequality in China, 1978-2006. Eurasian Ge-
ography and Economics, 49(1), 1e18.
Graymore, M. L. M., Sipe, N. G., & Rickson, R. E. (2010). Sustaining human carrying
capacity: a tool for regional sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics,
69(3), 459e468.
Guo, Z. L., & Liu, M. G. (2003). Secondary fuzzy comprehensive evaluation about the
ability of a city's undertaken disaster by AHM. Journal of Hebei Institute of
Architectural Science and Technology, 20(2), 5e8 (in Chinese).
Heikkila, E., & Xu, Y. (2013). Seven prototypical chinese cities. Urban Studies, 1e21.
Jin, W., Xu, L., & Yang, Z. (2009). Modeling a policy making framework for urban
sustainability: incorporating system dynamics into the ecological footprint.
Ecological Economics, 68(12), 2938e2949.
Joardar, S. D. (1998). Carrying capacities and standards as bases towards urban
infrastructure planning in India: a case of urban water supply and sanitation.
Habitat International, 22(3), 327e337.
Li, F., Liu, X. S., Hu, D., Wang, R. S., Yang, W. R., & Li, D. (2009). Measurement in-
dicators and an evaluation approach for assessing urban sustainable develop-
ment: a case study for China's Jining City. Landscape and Urban Planning,
90(3e4), 134e142.
Liu, H. (2012). Comprehensive carrying capacity of the urban agglomeration in the
Yangtze River Delta, China. Habitat International, 36(4), 462e470.
Liu, R. Z., & Borthwick, A. G. L. (2011). Measurement and assessment of carrying
capacity of the environment in Ningbo, China. Journal of Environmental Man-
agement, 92(8), 2047e2053.
Li, B., & Yao, R. (2009). Urbanisation and its impact on building energy consumption
and efficiency in China. Renewable Energy, 34(9), 1994e1998.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2011). Urban World: Mapping the economic power of
cities.
Oh, K., Jeong, Y., Lee, D., Lee, W., & Choi, J. (2005). Determining development density
using the urban carrying capacity assessment system. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 73(1), 1e15.
Onishi, T. (1994). A capacity approach for sustainable urban development: an
empirical study. Regional Studies, 28(1), 39e51.
Pillet, G., & Odum, H. (1984). Energy externality and the economy of Switzerland.
Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 120, 409e435.
Repetto, R. (1992). Accounting for environmental assets. Scientific American,
94e100. June.
Sarma, A. K., Mahanta, C., Bhattacharya, R., Dutta, S., Kartha, S., Kumar, B., et al.
(2012). Urban carrying capacity: Concept and calculation (p. 23) (Guwahati,
Assam,India).
Summers, P. (2004). Population carrying capacity in Noosa Shire. Tewantin: Noosa
Council. Tewantin: Noosa Council. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/
scholar?q¼populationþcarryingþcapabilityþinþnoosaþshire&btnG¼&hl¼zh-
CN&as_sdt¼0%2C5#2.
Tan, W. K., Shi, Y. S., & Sun, L. (2008). Some theoretical issues on urban carrying
capacity. China Population Resources and Environment, 18(1), 40e44 (in Chinese).
The World Bank. (2014). China: To promote efficient, compatible, and sustainable
urbanization. Beijing. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/
Worldbank/document/EAP/China/urban-china-overview-cn.pdf.
Wang, F. (2013). Beijing as a globally fluent city. Beijing. Retrieved from http://www.
brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/10/14 beijing as a globally
fluent city/beijing as a globally fluent city.pdf.
Wei, Y. G., Huang, C., Lam, P. T. I., & Yuan, Z. Y. (2015). Sustainable urban develop-
ment: a review on urban carrying capacity assessment. Habitat International, 46,
64e71.
World Commission on Environment Development. (1987). Our common future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yue, T. X., Tian, Y. Z., Liu, J. Y., & Fan, Z. M. (2008). Surface modeling of human
carrying capacity of terrestrial ecosystems in China. Ecological Modelling,
214(2e4), 168e180.
Yu, D. L., & Mao, H. Y. (2002). Regional carrying capacity: case studies of Bohai Rim
area. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 12(2), 177e185.