Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Eng    2022, Vol. 9 Issue (2) : 257-267    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-020-0144-y
RESEARCH ARTICLE
An evaluation model of water-saving reconstruction projects based on resource value flows
Runwen JIANG1, Xiaohong CHEN2, Lingchu ZHAO1, Zhifang ZHOU3, Tao ZHANG4()
1. Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
2. Collaborative Innovation Center of Resource-conserving & Environment-friendly Society and Ecological Civilization, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China; Mobile E-business 2011 Collaborative Innovation Center of Hunan Province, Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha 410205, China
3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Resource-conserving & Environment-friendly Society and Ecological Civilization, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
4. Loughborough University London, London E20 3BS, UK
 Download: PDF(206 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Due to uncertainties in water supply, there is growing demand for water resource management in enterprises. In this study, we evaluated the effects of companies’ water-saving reconstruction projects. We used Hina Advanced Materials Company as a case to construct an investment decision model to (1) calculate the internal and external costs of water resources based on circular economic value analysis theory, and (2) locate the level of water resources circulation. We adopted gray situation decision analysis to identify the typical problems that occur in water resource utilization. Moreover, we demonstrated optimization plans for different potential improvements, thereby providing guidance and references for water resource cost management and the comprehensive optimization of environmental benefits. We concluded that the circulation economic value analysis model can effectively display the flow and amount of value derived from water resource flows, thereby providing guidance and suggestions for optimizing water resource flows.
Keywords value flow analysis      ternary materials enterprises      grey situation decision analysis      water resources     
Corresponding Author(s): Tao ZHANG   
Just Accepted Date: 29 September 2020   Online First Date: 23 November 2020    Issue Date: 25 May 2022
 Cite this article:   
Runwen JIANG,Xiaohong CHEN,Lingchu ZHAO, et al. An evaluation model of water-saving reconstruction projects based on resource value flows[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(2): 257-267.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-020-0144-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2022/V9/I2/257
Goal layer Criterion layer Weight Index layers Weight
Water resource value flow evaluation index (H) Water input (C1) 0.413 Sales water cost rate 0.462
Fresh water consumption per unit product 0.203
Cycle water consumption per unit product 0.203
Wastewater treatment cost per unit product 0.132
Water recycling (C2) 0.260 Water resource cost loss rate 0.388
Water recycling rate 0.214
Ratio of internal resource value to external environmental damage 0.274
Ammonia wastewater treatment rate 0.124
Water output (C3) 0.327 Ammonia emissions per unit product 0.218
Ammonia wastewater discharge per unit product 0.380
Chemical oxygen demand emissions per unit product 0.152
External damage value per unit product 0.175
Total nitrogen emissions per unit product 0.075
Tab.1  Quantitative index system for water resource value flow evaluation in the ternary materials industry
Resource flow efficiency level Comprehensive evaluation score Resource flow efficiency
I 0.80 to 1.00 Consistent with international advanced standards
II 0.60 to 0.80 Consistent with domestic advanced standards
III 0.40 to 0.60 Met the basic domestic standards
IV Below 0.40 Failed to meet basic domestic standards
Tab.2  Ternary materials industry resource flow efficiency evaluation level
Validity index Specific indicators Weight Extremum
Comprehensive economic utility indicators A A1: Total investment 0.0893 Minimal
A2: Economic benefits 0.0954 Maximal
A3: Annual operating cost 0.0659 Minimal
A4: Added value output efficiency 0.0686 Maximal
Resource flow indicators B B1: Water resource cost loss rate 0.0995 Minimal
B2: Water recycling rate 0.0680 Maximal
B3: Change rate of wastewater treatment cost 0.0955 Minimal
B4: Change rate of internal resource value flow 0.1246 Minimal
Social environmental benefit indicators C C1: Change rate of ammonia nitride emissions 0.1182 Minimal
C2: Change rate of exhaust gas damage value 0.0304 Minimal
C3: Change rate of external damage per unit output 0.0593 Minimal
C4: Change rate of wastewater discharge 0.0752 Minimal
Tab.3  Optimization of water resource value flow index and weight allocation in ternary materials industry
Fig.1  Water resource transfer balance graph of Hina.
Stage Internal water loss cost External environmental damage cost
Item Value flow cost (yuan) Proportion Value flow cost (yuan) Proportion
Synthesis reaction Positive products 3671931 77.90% 523865 32.92%
Negative products 1041715 22.10%
Total 4713646 100%
Water filtration Positive products 4963938 57.07% 917713 57.66%
Negative products 3734043 42.93%
Total 8697981 100%
Dry sieving Positive products 3409800 68.69% 149967 9.42%
Negative products 1554241 31.31%%
Total 4964041 100%
Tab.4  Two-dimensional accounting summary of Hina’s water resource internal and external cost
Project b1 b2 b3 b4
Internal economic benefits 518946 -406956 558182 763166
External economic benefits 111339 475105 447321 -128362
Tab.5  Comprehensive cost-efficiency of different options (unit: yuan)
Projects b1 b2 b3 b4
Comprehensive economic utility indicators A A1: Total investment (yuan) 5460000 3900000 9620000 1560000
A2: Economic benefits (yuan) 518946 -406956 558182 763166
A3: Annual operating cost (yuan) 273127 27307 1740172 280319
A4: Added value output efficiency 0 0.24 0 1.56
Resource flow indicators B B1: Water resource cost loss rate (%) 60.42 45.63 40.35 64.32
B2: Water recycling rate (%) 72.64 84.62 88.65 67.52
B3: Change rate of wastewater treatment cost (%) -10.15 0 -48.75 -34.95
B4: Change rate of internal resource value flow (%) -7.60 6.59 -8.69 -9.53
Social environmental benefit indicators C C1: Change rate of ammonia nitride emissions (%) -16.50 -35.60 -58.69 -19.65
C2: Change rate of exhaust gas damage value (%) -0.94 -31.00 -1.96 45.63
C3: Change rate of external damage per unit output (%) -7.00 -29.85 -28.11 8.07
C4: Change rate of wastewater discharge (%) -39.15 -46.85 -55.63 0
Tab.6  Target effects of the different reconstruction projects in Hina
Projects b1 b2 b3 b4
Comprehensive economic utility indicators A A1: Total investment 0.71 1.00 0.41 0.25
A2: Economic benefits 0.33 0 0.35 1.00
A3: Annual operating cost 0.10 1.00 0.02 0.10
A4: Added value output efficiency 0 0.15 0 1.00
Resource flow indicators B B1: Water resource cost loss rate 0.67 0.88 1.00 0.63
B2: Water recycling rate 0.82 0.95 1.00 0.76
B3: Change rate of wastewater treatment cost 0.21 0 1.00 0.74
B4: Change rate of internal resource value flow 0.80 0 0.91 1.00
Social environmental benefit indicators C C1: Change rate of ammonia nitride emissions 0.28 0.61 1.00 0.33
C2: Change rate of exhaust gas damage value 0.03 1.00 0.06 0
C3: Change rate of external damage per unit output 0.23 1.00 0.94 0
C4: Change rate of wastewater discharge 0.70 0.84 1.00 0
Tab.7  Performance measurement of the different reconstruction projects in Hina
1 M Bouzon, K Govindan, C M T Rodriguez (2018). Evaluating barriers for reverse logistics implementation under a multiple stakeholders’ perspective analysis using grey decision-making approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128: 315–335
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.022
2 R L Burritt, K L Christ, A Omori (2016). Drivers of corporate water-related disclosure: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129: 65–74
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.119
3 R L Burritt, S Schaltegger, D Zvezdov (2011). Carbon management accounting: Explaining practice in leading German companies. Australian Accounting Review, 21(1): 80–98
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00121.x
4 T Busch, C Liedtke, S Beucker (2005). The concept of corporate resource efficiency accounting—A case study in the electronic industry. In: Schaltegger S, Bennett M, Burritt R, eds. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting. Berlin: Springer, 109–128
5 D Cassimon, P Engelen, L van Liedekerke (2016). When do firms invest in corporate social responsibility? A real option framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1): 15–29
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2539-y
6 Y Çelikbilek, F Tüysüz (2016). An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision-making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources. Energy, 115: 1246–1258
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.09.091
7 A K Chapagain, D Tickner (2012). Water footprint: Help or hindrance? Water Alternatives, 5(3): 563–581
8 K L Christ, R L Burritt (2017). Water management accounting: A framework for corporate practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 152: 379–386
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.147
9 L Collet, D Ruelland, V B Estupina, A Dezetter, E Servat (2015). Water supply sustainability and adaptation strategies under anthropogenic and climatic changes of a meso-scale Mediterranean catchment. Science of the Total Environment, 536: 589–602
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.093 pmid: 26247688
10 X H Ding, J H He, L Y Wang (2018). Inter-provincial water resource utilization efficiency and its driving factors considering undesirable outputs: Based on SE-SBM and Tobit model. China Population, Resources and Environment, 28(1): 157–164 (in Chinese)
11 C K Gao, M H Zhang, Y X Wei, H M Na, K J Fang (2016). Construction and analysis of “water carrier” and “water value” in the iron and steel production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139: 540–547
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.076
12 E Giuliani (2016). Human rights and corporate social responsibility in developing countries’ industrial clusters. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1): 39–54
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2375-5
13 J Hazelton (2014). Corporate water accountability—The role of water labels given non-fungible extractions. Pacific Accounting Review, 26(1/2): 8–27
https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-07-2013-0074
14 C Herzig, T Viere, S Schaltegger, R L Burritt (2013). Environmental Management Accounting: Case Studies of South-East Asian Companies. London: Routledge
15 W Hu, Q H Long, M Qian, G B Liu (2014). Determination of evaluation index system weight for enterprises wastewater treatment based on AHP. Environmental Pollution & Control, 36(2): 88–91, 95 (in Chinese)
16 C M Jasch (2008). Environmental and Material Flow Cost Accounting:Principles and Procedures. Springer
17 P Jones, D Hillier, D Comfort (2015). Water stewardship and corporate sustainability: A case study of reputation management in the food and drinks industry. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(1): 116–126
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1534
18 N Khalil, S N Kamaruzzaman, M R Baharum (2016). Ranking the indicators of building performance and the users’ risk via Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): Case of Malaysia. Ecological Indicators, 71: 567–576
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.032
19 D Y Li, M Huang, S G Ren, X H Chen, L T Ning (2016). Environmental legitimacy, green innovation, and corporate carbon disclosure: Evidence from CDP China 100. Journal of Business Ethics, 150: 1089–1104
20 F Martinez (2015). A three-dimensional conceptual framework of corporate water responsibility. Organization & Environment, 28(2): 137–159
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614545632
21 M Nakajima, A Kimura, B Wagner (2015). Introduction of Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) to the supply chain: A questionnaire study on the challenges of constructing a low-carbon supply chain to promote resource efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108: 1302–1309
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.044
22 Y W Park, P Hong, J J Roh (2013). Supply chain lessons from the catastrophic natural disaster in Japan. Business Horizons, 56(1): 75–85
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.09.008
23 P Pitchipoo, P Venkumar, S Rajakarunakaran (2013). Modeling and development of a decision support system for supplier selection in the process industry. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 9(1): 23
https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-712X-9-23
24 M Prox (2015). Material flow cost accounting extended to the supply chain—Challenges, benefits and links to life cycle engineering. Procedia CIRP, 29: 486–491
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.077
25 Y Qiu, A Shaukat, R Tharyan (2016). Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. British Accounting Review, 48(1): 102–116
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.10.007
26 S Signori, G A Bodino (2013). Water management and accounting: Remarks and new insights from an accountability perspective. In: Songini L, Pistoni A, Herzig C, eds. Accounting and Control for Sustainability (Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting, vol. 26). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 115–161
27 S Sindhu, V Nehra, S Luthra (2017). Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73: 496–511
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.135
28 X Song, Z Li (2012). Modified index system for eco-efficiency evaluation of circular economy in economy in coal mining area based on network flow analysis. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 7(13): 1–9
https://doi.org/10.4156/jcit.vol7.issue13.1
29 F Sulong, M Sulaiman, M A Norhayati (2015). Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) enablers and barriers: The case of a Malaysian small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME). Journal of Cleaner Production, 108: 1365–1374
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.038
30 Y K Wan, R T L Ng, D K S Ng, R R Tan (2015). Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA)-based approach for prioritisation of waste recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107: 602–614
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.024
31 Y H Wei (2017). Method research of construction engineering project investment project preference based on grey situation decision-making theory. Journal of Jilin Jianzhu University, 34(5): 104–108 (in Chinese)
32 X Xiao, Y L Jin (2008). Discussion on construction of resource value flow accounting—By way of recycling economy in process-based manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Finance and Economics, (10): 122–132 (in Chinese)
33 X Xiao, S H Liu (2014). Environmental management accounting research based on “elements flow–value flow” analysis. Accounting Research, (3): 79–87, 96 (in Chinese)
34 X Xiao, F Xiong (2010). Theory and methodology system of resource value flow based on recycling economy. Systems Engineering, 28(12): 64–68 (in Chinese)
35 X Xiao, H X Zeng, S H Li (2017). Study on “material flow–value flow-organization” three-dimensional model of environmental management accounting. Accounting Research, (1): 15–22, 95 (in Chinese)
36 F Xiong, X Xiao (2014). Performance measurement of circular economy of iron and steel enterprises based on value flow. Environmental Pollution & Control, 36(5): 13–18, 23 (in Chinese)
37 F Xiong, X Xiao, X H Chen, Z F Zhou (2015). Path optimization of Chinese aluminum corporation for a circular economy strategy based on a resource value flow model: A case study of China LCO. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 14(8): 1923–1932
https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2015.206
38 H F Yang (2006). Evaluation index system of enterprises competitiveness based on circular economy. Systems Engineering, 24(11): 79–84 (in Chinese)
39 L Zheng, X Xiao (2010). Study on control decision model of resource flow cost accounting. The Theory and Practice of Finance and Economics, 31(1): 57–61 (in Chinese)
40 Z F Zhou, L M Liu (2017). Research on the environmental protection investment decision of thermal power enterprises based on the transfer of resource value. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 34(9): 114–120 (in Chinese)
41 Z F Zhou, L Y Zhang, J Ou (2018). Research on the optimization of the circular economy value flow in process manufacturing enterprises—Taking papermaking companies as an example. Accounting and Finance, 175(5): 67–73 (in Chinese)
[1] Da-zhao Gu. Technology Development and Engineering Practice for Protection and Utilization of Water Resources in Coal Mining in Western China[J]. Front. Eng, 2016, 3(1): 59-66.
[2] Zhi-fang Zhou,Jing Ou,Sha-sha Wang,Xiao-hong Chen. The Building of Papermaking Enterprise’s Recycling Economy Evaluation Index System Based on Value Flow Analysis[J]. Front. Eng, 2016, 3(1): 9-17.
[3] Xiao-jun Liu,Zhen-yu Guo,Chao Ding,Han-liang Fu. Industrial Structure Adjustment of Shaanxi Province under the Limited Water Resources Condition[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(4): 378-384.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed