Low-carbon oriented control detailed planning scheme evaluation method and device

Abstract

The invention discloses a low-carbon oriented control detailed planning scheme evaluation method and device. The method comprises the following steps: constructing an evaluation index system; wherein the evaluation index system comprises a plurality of evaluation indexes corresponding to different index attributes; dynamically screening the evaluation indexes to obtain index subsets corresponding to different scheme types; identifying a scheme type of a to-be-assessed scheme, determining to-be-assessed indexes of the to-be-assessed scheme according to the index subset corresponding to the scheme type of the to-be-assessed scheme, and determining a standard value corresponding to each to-be-assessed index according to the scheme type of the to-be-assessed scheme; and collecting an actual value of each to-be-evaluated index, and determining an evaluation result of the to-be-evaluated scheme according to the index attribute of each to-be-evaluated index, the actual value of each to-be-evaluated index and the corresponding standard value. According to the invention, the evaluation accuracy and reliability of the control detailed planning scheme can be improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of urban and rural planning, and in particular to a method and apparatus for evaluating low-carbon-oriented control-based detailed planning schemes. Background Technology

[0002] With the deepening of my country's "carbon peaking and carbon neutrality" strategy, the low-carbon transformation of urban and rural construction, as one of the main sources of carbon emissions, is of paramount importance. Detailed regulatory planning (hereinafter referred to as "regulatory planning") is a crucial level in my country's territorial spatial planning system, serving as a vital tool for implementing the low-carbon strategic goals of the overall plan down to specific plots and development activities.

[0003] Currently, there are some studies and practices in low-carbon city evaluation both domestically and internationally, such as the UK's BREEAM Communities, the US's LEED-ND assessment systems, and some green and eco-friendly city evaluation standards in China. However, these existing technologies generally suffer from the following shortcomings: (1) Mismatch between levels: The existing system focuses on the overall urban planning or the evaluation of community operation after completion, and lacks systematic low-carbon assessment indicators specifically for the implementation planning level of "control detailed planning".

[0004] (2) Poor universality: The existing indicators are mostly constructed for specific case sites (such as a certain park or area), and the indicator system lacks universality, making it difficult to promote and apply in control planning units of different functional types and different development stages.

[0005] (3) Weak control: Existing research is disconnected from the current control plan’s preparation, approval and implementation process, making it difficult to incorporate indicators into the legally mandated planning and management process, and lacking effective control measures.

[0006] (4) Low operability: Many indicator data are difficult to obtain from control planning schemes or routine surveys. The calculation methods are complex, the practicality is not strong, and it is difficult to form a standardized tool that can be used for reference.

[0007] Therefore, there is an urgent need in this field for a low-carbon assessment technology solution that can be deeply integrated with the existing regulatory system, is scientific and systematic, and is easy to operate, in order to fill the management gap between macro-level objectives and micro-level implementation. Summary of the Invention

[0008] To overcome the shortcomings of the prior art, the present invention provides a method and apparatus for evaluating low-carbon-oriented controllable detailed planning schemes.

[0009] An embodiment of the present invention provides a method for evaluating low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes, comprising the following steps: Construct an evaluation index system; wherein the evaluation index system includes several evaluation indicators corresponding to different index attributes; The evaluation indicators are dynamically screened to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types; wherein, the scheme type is a two-dimensional matrix composed of unit type and unit attribute, the unit type is determined according to the land use type proportion of the control planning unit, and the unit attribute is determined according to the built environment maturity index of the control planning unit. Identify the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, determine the evaluation indicators of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator subset corresponding to the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, and determine the standard value corresponding to each evaluation indicator based on the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated. The actual values ​​of each of the indicators to be evaluated are collected, and the evaluation results of the scheme to be evaluated are determined based on the indicator attributes of each indicator, the actual value of each indicator and the corresponding standard value.

[0010] Furthermore, the construction of the evaluation index system specifically includes: Based on the preset carbon flow analysis results, several evaluation indicators are determined, and the indicator attributes corresponding to each evaluation indicator are determined according to the indicator definition of each evaluation indicator; wherein, the indicator attributes include binding indicators and guiding indicators. The evaluation indicators are divided into different indicator dimensions, and all the indicator dimensions are combined to obtain the evaluation indicator system; wherein, the indicator dimensions include building dimension, transportation dimension, infrastructure dimension and open space dimension.

[0011] Furthermore, the dynamic filtering of the evaluation indicators to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types specifically includes: Select one of the aforementioned scheme types as the screening type, and for the screening type, obtain the mean score and grade sum corresponding to each of the aforementioned evaluation indicators; The average score of the selected indicators exceeds a preset scoring threshold, and the evaluation indicators that are lower than the preset level threshold are selected as subset indicators. All the subset indicators are then combined to obtain the indicator subset corresponding to the type to be selected. Each of the aforementioned scheme types is selected as the type to be screened, and a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types is obtained through screening.

[0012] Preferably, obtaining the mean score and grade sum corresponding to each of the evaluation indicators specifically includes: Obtain the positive correlation scores from several reviewers regarding the positive correlation between each evaluation indicator and the type to be screened. Let the score of the i-th reviewer for the j-th indicator be... Then the mean score of index j for:

[0013] Where m represents the total number of reviewers; For the same evaluation indicator, the positive correlation scores given by each reviewer to the indicator are ranked from highest to lowest, and the grade of the evaluation indicator is calculated based on the ranking results. The specific calculation formula is as follows: .

[0014] Preferably, after obtaining the subset of indicators, the method further includes: The average score of all subset indicators in the subset is summed to obtain the total score of the indicators, and the average score of the indicators is calculated based on the total score of the indicators. Based on the sum of the index scores and the average index score, the Kendall's coefficient of harmony for the subset of indicators is calculated; where, let the Kendall's coefficient of harmony be W, then:

[0015] Where j is the index number. The sum of the scores for the aforementioned indicators. The average score of the indicators is N, where N is the total number of indicators; When the Kendall harmony coefficient is greater than a preset confidence threshold, the subset of indicators is determined to be valid; when the Kendall harmony coefficient is less than the preset confidence threshold, the subset of indicators is determined to be invalid.

[0016] Furthermore, the identification of the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated specifically includes: The unit type of the proposed evaluation scheme is determined based on the proportion of the total land area occupied by each land use type in the scheme to be evaluated; wherein the formula for calculating the proportion is:

[0017] in The specific gravity is... The land area corresponding to a specific land use type. This refers to the total area of ​​the land used; Collect indicator data of preset core construction indicators and normalize the indicator data to obtain normalized data; wherein, the preset core construction indicators include building density, road network density, public service facility density and resident population density; Based on the normalized data, the environmental maturity index is calculated; wherein the specific calculation formula for the environmental maturity index is as follows:

[0018] in, The environmental maturity index is mentioned above. It is the value of the k-th normalized data point. The maturity weight of this indicator is determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and ; When the environmental maturity index is greater than or equal to a preset judgment threshold, the unit attribute is determined to be an existing region; when the environmental maturity index is less than the preset judgment threshold, the unit attribute is determined to be an incremental region.

[0019] Furthermore, determining the standard value corresponding to each of the evaluation indicators based on the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated specifically includes: The benchmark values ​​corresponding to each of the indicators to be evaluated are obtained from the preset standard data; wherein, the preset standard data is obtained from local standard documents; Based on the scheme type and the benchmark value, the standard value is calculated using a preset suggested value function; wherein, the specific formula for calculating the standard value is as follows:

[0020] in, Let f() be the standard value, f() be the preset suggested value function, T be the cell type, and S be the cell attribute. The reference value; The constraints of the preset suggested value function include: for the constraint index, setting the corresponding standard value not less than the benchmark value; for the guidance index, setting the corresponding standard value according to the environmental maturity index; when the environmental maturity index is greater than or equal to the preset maturity threshold, setting the standard value less than or equal to the benchmark value; when the environmental maturity index is less than the preset maturity threshold, setting the standard value greater than the benchmark value.

[0021] Furthermore, determining the evaluation result of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes of each indicator to be evaluated, the actual value of each indicator to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value specifically includes: Based on the indicator attributes of each indicator to be evaluated, the actual value of each indicator to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value, calculate the compliance score of each indicator to be evaluated. The compliance scores of each of the aforementioned indicators to be evaluated are weighted and summed to obtain the comprehensive evaluation score of the proposed solution.

[0022] Preferably, the step of calculating the compliance score of each of the indicators to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes, the actual value of each of the indicators to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value specifically includes: For the aforementioned binding index, the formula for calculating the compliance score is:

[0023] in, The actual value; For the guiding indicator, the formula for calculating the compliance score is:

[0024] in, This is the preset sensitivity coefficient.

[0025] Another embodiment of the present invention provides a low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning scheme evaluation device, including: a construction module, a screening module, an identification module, and an evaluation module; The construction module is used to construct an evaluation index system; wherein, the evaluation index system includes several evaluation indicators corresponding to different index attributes; The filtering module is used to dynamically filter the evaluation indicators to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types; wherein, the scheme type is a two-dimensional matrix composed of unit type and unit attribute, the unit type is determined according to the land use type proportion of the planning unit, and the unit attribute is determined according to the built environment maturity index of the planning unit. The identification module is used to identify the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, determine the evaluation indicators of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator subset corresponding to the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, and determine the standard value corresponding to each evaluation indicator based on the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated. The evaluation module is used to collect the actual values ​​of each of the indicators to be evaluated, and to determine the evaluation result of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes of each indicator, the actual value of each indicator and the corresponding standard value.

[0026] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: By classifying planning units (residential, industrial, transportation hubs, etc.) and identifying their attributes (incremental / existing), and then "tailor-making" differentiated subsets of indicators for each, the adaptability and accuracy of low-carbon assessments of control planning schemes containing different unit types and attributes are improved. At the same time, flexibly setting standard values ​​for assessment indicators of different attributes enhances the scientific rigor and reliability of the assessment. Attached Figure Description

[0027] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a low-carbon-oriented controllable detailed planning scheme evaluation method provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0028] Figure 2This is a relationship diagram of a low-carbon regulatory assessment index system provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0029] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of a low-carbon-oriented controllable detailed planning scheme evaluation device provided in another embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0030] The accompanying drawings are for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as limiting the scope of this patent. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that certain well-known structures and their descriptions may be omitted in the accompanying drawings.

[0031] The technical solution of the present invention will be further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0032] Reference Figure 1 The above is a flowchart illustrating a low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning scheme evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention, including the following steps: S1: Construct an evaluation index system; wherein the evaluation index system includes several evaluation indicators corresponding to different index attributes; S2: Dynamically filter the evaluation indicators to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types; wherein, the scheme type is a two-dimensional matrix composed of unit type and unit attribute, the unit type is determined according to the land use type proportion of the control planning unit, and the unit attribute is determined according to the built environment maturity index of the control planning unit; S3: Identify the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, determine the evaluation indicators of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator subset corresponding to the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, and determine the standard value corresponding to each evaluation indicator based on the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated. S4: Collect the actual values ​​of each of the indicators to be evaluated, and determine the evaluation result of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes of each indicator to be evaluated, the actual value of each indicator to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value.

[0033] For step S1, specifically, the construction of the evaluation index system includes: Based on the preset carbon flow analysis results, several evaluation indicators are determined, and the indicator attributes corresponding to each evaluation indicator are determined according to the indicator definition of each evaluation indicator; wherein, the indicator attributes include binding indicators and guiding indicators. The evaluation indicators are divided into different indicator dimensions, and all the indicator dimensions are combined to obtain the evaluation indicator system; wherein, the indicator dimensions include building dimension, transportation dimension, infrastructure dimension and open space dimension.

[0034] In a preferred embodiment, refer to Figure 2 This is a relationship diagram of a low-carbon regulatory assessment index system provided in an embodiment of the present invention. Figure 2 As can be seen, this invention identifies four key dimensions based on urban system carbon flow analysis: building dimension (static energy consumption), transportation dimension (dynamic transportation carbon emissions), infrastructure dimension (system operation energy efficiency and resource recycling), and open space dimension (carbon sink and physical environment regulation).

[0035] The architectural dimension includes the following evaluation indicators: A1. Building spacing: refers to the horizontal distance between the exterior walls of two buildings.

[0036] Calculation method: Measure the minimum horizontal distance between the exterior walls of the building directly or from the planning drawings.

[0037] Low-carbon mechanism: Appropriate building spacing is the basis for forming ventilation corridors, which is conducive to natural ventilation within the community, removes heat and pollutants, reduces building cooling energy consumption in summer, and thus reduces carbon emissions.

[0038] A2. Building orientation: refers to the direction of the main facade of a building.

[0039] Calculation Method: A quantitative evaluation method is used. The plane with the smaller side of the standard floor plan is defined as the reference plane, facing south (0°), increasing clockwise to 360°. The overall orientation optimization level is assessed by statistically analyzing the percentage of buildings with the optimal orientation (e.g., at an angle of 60°-90° to the prevailing summer wind direction, or close to north-south). Orientation optimization coefficient = (N_optimal / N_total) × 100%. Where N_optimal is the number of buildings with orientations within the optimal range, and N_total is the total number of buildings.

[0040] Low-carbon mechanism: Optimized orientation can maximize the use of solar radiation heat gain in winter and reduce solar radiation heat gain in summer, while also facilitating the introduction of natural wind, thus comprehensively reducing the building's heating and cooling load.

[0041] A3. Architectural layout form: refers to the way individual buildings are combined.

[0042] Calculation methods: Qualitative judgment, which can be divided into row-and-column type, perimeter type, mixed type, scattered type, free type, etc. Identification and classification are carried out through analysis of planning drawings.

[0043] Low-carbon mechanism: Row-and-row or scattered layouts are more conducive to forming smooth ventilation corridors, promoting air circulation, improving microclimate, and indirectly reducing building energy consumption.

[0044] A4. Ventilation corridor width: refers to a specific width of passageway designed to ensure air circulation in the city.

[0045] Calculation method: Based on urban building models and meteorological data, GIS and CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) software are used to identify and simulate urban ventilation corridors and plan and control their minimum width.

[0046] Low-carbon mechanism: As a "wind corridor" at the city level, it can effectively introduce cold and humid air from the suburbs into the city center, alleviate the heat island effect, and significantly reduce the building cooling demand in downstream areas. It is a binding low-carbon spatial structure indicator.

[0047] A5. Proportion of newly constructed urban buildings implementing green building standards: refers to the proportion of newly constructed urban buildings that implement green building standards out of the total number of buildings.

[0048] Calculation method: I5 = (S_green / S_total) × 100%. Where S_green is the area of ​​newly built buildings in the town that comply with green building standards, and S_total is the total area of ​​newly built buildings in the town.

[0049] Low-carbon mechanism: Green building standards impose higher requirements on building performance in terms of energy, resources, materials, and other aspects. They are a mandatory means to directly and effectively reduce carbon emissions from building operation.

[0050] A6. Proportion of Energy-Saving and Green Retrofitting of Existing Urban Buildings: This refers to the proportion of existing urban buildings that have undergone energy-saving retrofitting to the total number of buildings.

[0051] Calculation method: I6 = (S_retrofit / S_existing) × 100%. Where S_retrofit is the area of ​​existing buildings that have undergone energy-saving and green renovation, and S_existing is the total area of ​​existing buildings in the town.

[0052] Low-carbon mechanism: For existing buildings, improving the thermal insulation performance of the building envelope and updating energy-consuming equipment are key to directly reducing their operating energy consumption and achieving a low-carbon transformation across the entire region.

[0053] A7. Proportion of newly constructed public buildings in urban areas with solar photovoltaic installations on rooftops: refers to the proportion of newly constructed public buildings in urban areas with solar photovoltaic installations on rooftops.

[0054] Calculation method: I7 = (S_PV / S_roof_eligible) × 100%. Where S_PV is the roof area with installed photovoltaics, and S_roof_eligible is the total roof area suitable for photovoltaic installation.

[0055] Low-carbon mechanism: Transform the building itself into a clean energy producer, realize the "on-site production and on-site consumption" of energy, directly replace fossil fuels, and reduce carbon emissions corresponding to purchasing electricity from the grid.

[0056] The traffic dimension includes the following indicators: B1. 500-meter service circle coverage rate of public transportation stations: refers to the proportion of the area covered by all public bus stations within a certain radius within a certain area of ​​a city to the total area suitable for setting up public transportation stations.

[0057] Calculation Method: GIS spatial analysis was used. Service areas were established with all bus and rail stops as centers and a radius of 500 meters (along the road network). The proportion of the service area coverage to the total unit area was calculated as follows: I8 = (A_buffer / A_unit) × 100%. Where A_buffer is the service area coverage and A_unit is the total unit area.

[0058] Low-carbon mechanism: High coverage means that more residents can conveniently use public transportation, thereby reducing the use of private cars, which is one of the most important indicators for reducing transportation carbon emissions.

[0059] B2. Coverage rate of community public service facilities within a 15-minute walk: refers to the proportion of residential land within a 15-minute walk of various community public service facilities such as health, elderly care, education, culture, and sports, out of all residential land.

[0060] Calculation Method: GIS network analysis is used. Starting from various community public service facilities (education, medical care, cultural and sports facilities, etc.), service areas are established along the road network within a 15-minute walking distance (usually 500-800 meters). The proportion of residential land area covered by the service area to the total residential land area of ​​the unit is calculated. I9 = (A_service_access / A_residential) × 100%. Where A_service_access is the residential land area covered by the service area, and A_residential is the total residential land area of ​​the unit.

[0061] Low-carbon mechanism: Achieving "work-life balance" and "self-sufficiency in living circles" reduces the need for long-distance travel at the source, encourages walking, and reduces the proportion of motorized travel.

[0062] B3. New energy vehicle charging pile configuration rate in parking lots: refers to the ratio of the number of new energy vehicle charging piles to the total number of parking spaces in the parking lot.

[0063] Calculation method: I 10 = (N_charger / N_parking) × 100%. Where N_charger is the number of charging piles and N_parking is the total number of parking spaces in the parking lot.

[0064] Low-carbon mechanism: A sound infrastructure is a prerequisite for promoting new energy vehicles. By supporting the conversion of fuel vehicles to electric vehicles, energy substitution and carbon emission reduction can be achieved in the transportation sector.

[0065] B4. Road network density: refers to the ratio of the total length of all roads in the urban built-up area to the total area of ​​the region.

[0066] Calculation method: I 11 = ΣL_road / A_unit. Where ΣL_road is the sum of the centerline lengths of all roads (main roads, secondary roads, branch roads, etc.) within the unit.

[0067] Low-carbon mechanism: High-density road networks help disperse traffic flow, reduce congestion on main roads, and improve overall traffic efficiency, thereby reducing unnecessary carbon emissions caused by congestion.

[0068] B5. Sidewalk width & B6. Bike lane width: Calculation method: The minimum width control values ​​for sidewalks and bicycle lanes under various types of roads are directly specified in the planning and design.

[0069] Low-carbon mechanism: Sufficient, continuous and safe slow-moving spaces provide the physical guarantee to encourage walking and cycling. By improving the slow-moving experience, more short-distance trips can be attracted to adopt zero-carbon methods.

[0070] The infrastructure dimension includes the following evaluation metrics: C1. Sewage pipe network coverage rate: refers to the ratio of the area covered by sewage pipe network in the built-up area to the area of ​​the built-up area.

[0071] Calculation method: I 14 = (A_sewered / A_built) × 100%. Where A_sewered is the area covered by the sewage pipe network, and A_built is the area of ​​the built-up area.

[0072] Low-carbon mechanism: A well-developed wastewater collection system is a prerequisite for centralized and efficient treatment and reuse, reducing untreated pollutants discharged directly and creating conditions for the use of reclaimed water (to replace tap water), thus indirectly saving energy and reducing carbon emissions.

[0073] C2. Waste sorting facility coverage rate: refers to the ratio between the number or capacity of waste sorting facilities that have been built and put into use in a city or region and the total demand in the region.

[0074] Calculation method: I 15 = (N_facilities / N_required) × 100%. Where N_facilities is the number of waste sorting facilities that have been set up, and N_required is the total number that should be configured according to the standard.

[0075] Low-carbon mechanism: Promoting waste sorting at the source is a crucial first step in achieving the resource-based recycling and harmless treatment of waste. Resource utilization can reduce carbon emissions during the extraction and processing of virgin materials.

[0076] C3. Number of Regional Energy Stations: A regional energy station refers to an integrated social energy production, storage, supply, and consumption system formed by organically coordinating and optimizing the production, conversion, storage, transmission, and consumption of various forms and grades of energy within a specific region. This includes the technological integration of regional cooling, heating, power supply, and other energy systems designed to meet regional energy needs.

[0077] Calculation method: The number of regional energy stations is directly counted in the planning.

[0078] Low-carbon mechanism: Regional energy stations can significantly improve the overall energy efficiency of the entire region by integrating renewable energy, utilizing industrial waste heat, and realizing energy cascade utilization (such as combined cooling, heating and power). They are advanced infrastructure for systematically reducing energy carbon emissions.

[0079] S124: Open Space Dimension D1. Green space ratio: refers to the proportion of the total area of ​​all green spaces to the total land area.

[0080] Calculation method: I 17 = (S_green / S_plot) × 100%. Where S_green is the total area of ​​all types of green space within the plot, and S_plot is the total area of ​​the plot.

[0081] Low-carbon mechanism: Plants in green spaces directly absorb and fix carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, acting as a direct carbon sink. Simultaneously, the shading and transpiration effects of vegetation help mitigate the urban heat island effect and reduce the cooling energy consumption of surrounding buildings.

[0082] D2. 5-minute walking coverage of parks, green spaces, and plazas: refers to the 5-minute walking coverage of parks, green spaces, and plazas.

[0083] Calculation Method: GIS network analysis was used. Starting from the entrances of parks, green spaces, and plazas, service areas were established along the road network at 5-minute walking distances (typically 300-500 meters). The proportion of residential building area covered by these service areas to the total residential building area was calculated. 18 = (S_housing_covered / S_housing_total) × 100%. Where S_housing_covered is the residential building area covered by the service area, and S_housing_total is the total residential building area.

[0084] Low-carbon mechanism: Conveniently accessible green open spaces can encourage residents to engage in outdoor recreational activities, improve their quality of life, and reduce the need for motorized travel in search of recreational spaces.

[0085] D3. Park green space per capita: refers to the average park green space area per person.

[0086] Calculation method: I 19 = S_park / P. Where S_park is the total area of ​​parkland and green space, and P is the planned permanent resident population.

[0087] Low-carbon mechanism: While ensuring fairness, increase the per capita green space, strengthen the overall carbon sequestration capacity of the region, and synergistically improve the urban microclimate.

[0088] Among the above evaluation indicators, based on their mandatory and guiding roles in achieving low-carbon goals, they are divided into binding indicators and guiding indicators, defined as follows: Binding Indicators: These indicators are rigid requirements that must be met to ensure low-carbon development. They are usually directly related to national or local mandatory regulations, standards, and safety baselines. The recommended values ​​are either a lower or upper limit, and the planning scheme must meet or exceed these values ​​during the assessment. These include six indicators: ventilation corridor width, the proportion of newly constructed urban buildings implementing green building standards, the configuration rate of new energy vehicle charging piles in parking lots, road network density, sewage pipe network coverage, and green space ratio.

[0089] Guiding Indicators: These indicators are flexible targets for improving low-carbon development and encouraging optimization and innovation. They are usually related to technological progress, lifestyle guidance, and long-term optimization visions. Their suggested values ​​are recommended or target values ​​used in assessments to measure the advancement and optimization potential of planning schemes. These include: building spacing, building orientation, building layout, the proportion of energy-saving and green retrofitting of existing urban buildings, the proportion of newly constructed urban public buildings with rooftop solar photovoltaic installations, the coverage rate of public transportation stops within a 500-meter service circle, the coverage rate of community public service facilities within a 15-minute walk, sidewalk width, bicycle lane width, waste sorting facility coverage, the number of regional energy stations, the 5-minute walking coverage rate of parks, green spaces, and plazas, and the per capita park green space area (13 indicators).

[0090] For step S2, specifically, the dynamic screening of the evaluation indicators to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types specifically includes: Select one of the aforementioned scheme types as the screening type, and for the screening type, obtain the mean score and grade sum corresponding to each of the aforementioned evaluation indicators; The average score of the selected indicators exceeds a preset scoring threshold, and the evaluation indicators that are lower than the preset level threshold are selected as subset indicators. All the subset indicators are then combined to obtain the indicator subset corresponding to the type to be selected. Each of the aforementioned scheme types is selected as the type to be screened, and a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types is obtained through screening.

[0091] Preferably, obtaining the mean score and grade sum corresponding to each of the evaluation indicators specifically includes: Obtain the positive correlation scores from several reviewers regarding the positive correlation between each evaluation indicator and the type to be screened. Let the score of the i-th reviewer for the j-th indicator be... Then the mean score of index j for:

[0092] Where m represents the total number of reviewers; For the same evaluation indicator, the positive correlation scores given by each reviewer to the indicator are ranked from highest to lowest, and the grade of the evaluation indicator is calculated based on the ranking results. The specific calculation formula is as follows: .

[0093] In a preferred embodiment, for the selection of indicators for a specific unit, let the score given by the i-th reviewer to the j-th indicator be... Using a Likert scale of 5 (1-5 points), the mean score of indicator j is... for:

[0094] Where m is the number of reviewers, This reflects the overall importance of the indicators.

[0095] The scores of the same evaluation indicator are ranked from highest to lowest. For indicators with the same score, the average rank is used. For example, if indicator a scores [10, 9, 9, 8] for experts A, B, C, and D respectively, its corresponding rank is [1, 2.5, 2.5, 4]. Then, the corresponding grade is calculated based on the rank. :

[0096] The smaller the rank, the higher the priority of the indicator. For example, if the rank of indicator 'a' is 1, 2.5, or 4, then... .

[0097] Preferably, after obtaining the subset of indicators, the method further includes: The average score of all subset indicators in the subset is summed to obtain the total score of the indicators, and the average score of the indicators is calculated based on the total score of the indicators. Based on the sum of the index scores and the average index score, the Kendall's coefficient of harmony for the subset of indicators is calculated; where, let the Kendall's coefficient of harmony be W, then:

[0098] Where i is the index number. The sum of the scores for the aforementioned indicators. The average score of the indicators is N, where N is the total number of indicators; When the Kendall harmony coefficient is greater than a preset confidence threshold, the subset of indicators is determined to be valid; when the Kendall harmony coefficient is less than the preset confidence threshold, the subset of indicators is determined to be invalid.

[0099] In a preferred embodiment, the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) is used to assess the consensus of expert opinions. The specific calculation process is as follows: A. Calculate the sum of the mean scores for each indicator:

[0100] Calculate the average score:

[0101] Calculate S:

[0102] Calculate Kendall's harmony coefficient (W):

[0103] Where j is the indicator number, N is the total number of indicators, and K is the number of reviewers. The calculation result of W ranges from 0 (no consistency) to 1 (complete consistency). W ≥ 0.5 is set as acceptable, that is, the indicator subset is valid, while W ≤ 0.5 indicates that the indicator subset is invalid and needs to be re-screened.

[0104] Furthermore, the identification of the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated specifically includes: The unit type of the proposed evaluation scheme is determined based on the proportion of the total land area occupied by each land use type in the scheme to be evaluated; wherein the formula for calculating the proportion is:

[0105] in The specific gravity is... The land area corresponding to a specific land use type. This refers to the total area of ​​the land used; Collect indicator data of preset core construction indicators and normalize the indicator data to obtain normalized data; wherein, the preset core construction indicators include building density, road network density, public service facility density and resident population density; Based on the normalized data, the environmental maturity index is calculated; wherein the specific calculation formula for the environmental maturity index is as follows:

[0106] in, The environmental maturity index is mentioned above. It is the value of the k-th normalized data point. The maturity weight of this indicator is determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and ; When the environmental maturity index is greater than or equal to a preset judgment threshold, the unit attribute is determined to be an existing region; when the environmental maturity index is less than the preset judgment threshold, the unit attribute is determined to be an incremental region.

[0107] In a preferred embodiment, based on the dominant function of the units in the planning scheme, they can be classified into one of the following types: residential living units, industrial development units, transportation hub units, comprehensive service units, and urban renewal units. The criteria for determining the unit type can be expressed as follows:

[0108] in, The proportion of specific land use types (such as residential, industrial, transportation, and business service land). This refers to the area of ​​this type of land use within the unit. This is the sum of the areas of all urban construction land within the unit. When When the area is residential or industrial land, if P ≥ 50%, it can be determined as a residential living unit or an industrial development unit. When the area is the sum of the land area for public service facilities and the land area for commercial and business use, and P ≥ 30%, it can be identified as a comprehensive service unit. For areas within a district that are included in the "Three Olds" redevelopment program, if P ≥ 30%, they can be classified as urban renewal units. Furthermore, if an area possesses significant regional infrastructure, such as railway stations, airports, or docks, it can be classified as a transportation hub unit.

[0109] After determining the unit type, the distinction between "incremental areas" and "existing areas" can be quantified by constructing the Environment Maturity Index (BEMI). The determination process is as follows: Indicator Selection and Normalization: Core indicators reflecting the maturity of regional development and construction were selected, such as building density (BD), road network density (RD), public service facility density (PSD), and resident population density (PD). To eliminate the influence of dimensions, the data of each indicator were normalized to the [0,1] interval. For the i-th indicator value... Its normalized value The calculation formula is:

[0110] in, This is the dataset for this metric across the entire domain.

[0111] Built Environment Maturity Index (BEMI) Calculation: BEMI is calculated using a weighted summation model. Assuming n indicators are selected, the BEMI value for any assessment unit j is:

[0112] in, It is the value of unit j on the k-th normalized index. It is the weight of the indicator, and Weight It can be determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) or the entropy weight method.

[0113] Increase / Inventory Attribute Judgment Threshold: Set the judgment threshold (For example, =0.6). Determined through historical data or expert consultation. If If so, then unit j is determined to be a stock area. If so, then unit j is determined to be an incremental region.

[0114] For step S3, specifically, determining the standard value corresponding to each of the evaluation indicators based on the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated includes: The benchmark values ​​corresponding to each of the indicators to be evaluated are obtained from the preset standard data; wherein, the preset standard data is obtained from local standard documents; Based on the scheme type and the benchmark value, the standard value is calculated using a preset suggested value function; wherein, the specific formula for calculating the standard value is as follows:

[0115] in, Let f() be the standard value, f() be the preset suggested value function, T be the cell type, and S be the cell attribute. The reference value; The constraints of the preset suggested value function include: for the constraint index, setting the corresponding standard value not less than the benchmark value; for the guidance index, setting the corresponding standard value according to the environmental maturity index; when the environmental maturity index is greater than or equal to the preset maturity threshold, setting the standard value less than or equal to the benchmark value; when the environmental maturity index is less than the preset maturity threshold, setting the standard value greater than the benchmark value.

[0116] In a preferred embodiment, the suggested value of the indicator is calculated by a function based on the cell type (T) and the incremental / stock attribute (S, which can be quantified as a BEMI value), specifically using the following formula:

[0117] in, The benchmark value in national or local standards.

[0118] For binding indicators, Usually set to Or, it can be appropriately increased based on the characteristics of the unit. For guiding indicators, It is negatively correlated with BEMI, meaning that the higher the level of development in an area, the more difficult it is to renovate and upgrade. The recommended value can be appropriately reduced.

[0119] For step S4, specifically, determining the evaluation result of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes of each indicator to be evaluated, the actual value of each indicator to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value, specifically includes: Based on the indicator attributes of each indicator to be evaluated, the actual value of each indicator to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value, calculate the compliance score of each indicator to be evaluated. The compliance scores of each of the aforementioned indicators to be evaluated are weighted and summed to obtain the comprehensive evaluation score of the proposed solution.

[0120] Preferably, the step of calculating the compliance score of each of the indicators to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes, the actual value of each of the indicators to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value specifically includes: For the aforementioned binding index, the formula for calculating the compliance score is:

[0121] in, The actual value; For the guiding indicator, the formula for calculating the compliance score is:

[0122] in, This is the preset sensitivity coefficient.

[0123] In a preferred embodiment, during the final evaluation stage, the compliance score for each of the indicators to be evaluated can be calculated based on the actual values ​​of each indicator collected and the recommended values ​​determined in the preceding steps.

[0124] For binding indicators, a veto or tiered scoring method is used. For example:

[0125] For guiding indicators, continuous scoring can be achieved using linear or non-linear functions. For example, a sigmoid function can be used to smoothly reflect the degree of proximity.

[0126] in, The sensitivity coefficient controls the steepness of the scoring curve.

[0127] Finally, based on the compliance scores of each of the evaluation indicators, the comprehensive score of the evaluated scheme can be calculated by weighted summation. The specific calculation formula is as follows:

[0128] in, For a subset of indicators The number of indicators to be evaluated in the data. Let be the weight of the i-th indicator to be evaluated.

[0129] For calculating the weights corresponding to the indicators to be evaluated, if the indicator system contains a hierarchical structure (such as target layer - criterion layer - solution layer), a judgment matrix needs to be constructed to calculate the weights. For example, the weights of the criterion layer. Solving using the eigenvector method:

[0130] Among them Determine the matrix, The largest eigenvalue, This is the weight vector.

[0131] Alternatively, subjective weights (AHP) and objective weights (entropy method) can be combined for calculation, resulting in the final weight. for:

[0132] α This is the adjustment coefficient, usually taken as 0.5. The objective weight is mentioned above.

[0133] Reference Figure 3The following is a schematic diagram of the structure of a low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning scheme evaluation device provided in another embodiment of the present invention, including: a construction module 101, a screening module 102, an identification module 103, and an evaluation module 104; The construction module 101 is used to construct an evaluation index system; wherein, the evaluation index system includes several evaluation indicators corresponding to different index attributes; The screening module 102 is used to dynamically screen the evaluation indicators to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types; wherein, the scheme type is a two-dimensional matrix composed of unit type and unit attribute, the unit type is determined according to the land use type proportion of the planning unit, and the unit attribute is determined according to the built environment maturity index of the planning unit. The identification module 103 is used to identify the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, determine the evaluation indicators of the scheme to be evaluated according to the indicator subset corresponding to the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, and determine the standard value corresponding to each evaluation indicator according to the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated. The evaluation module 104 is used to collect the actual values ​​of each of the indicators to be evaluated, and to determine the evaluation result of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes of each indicator to be evaluated, the actual value of each indicator to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value.

[0134] Obviously, the above embodiments of the present invention are merely examples for clearly illustrating the present invention, and are not intended to limit the implementation of the present invention. Those skilled in the art can make other variations or modifications based on the above description. It is neither necessary nor possible to exhaustively describe all embodiments here. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, and improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the scope of protection of the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Construct an evaluation index system; wherein the evaluation index system includes several evaluation indicators corresponding to different index attributes; The evaluation indicators are dynamically screened to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types; wherein, the scheme type is a two-dimensional matrix composed of unit type and unit attribute, the unit type is determined according to the land use type proportion of the control planning unit, and the unit attribute is determined according to the built environment maturity index of the control planning unit. Identify the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, determine the evaluation indicators of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator subset corresponding to the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, and determine the standard value corresponding to each evaluation indicator based on the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated. The actual values ​​of each of the indicators to be evaluated are collected, and the evaluation results of the scheme to be evaluated are determined based on the indicator attributes of each indicator, the actual value of each indicator and the corresponding standard value.

2. The evaluation method for low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The construction of the evaluation index system specifically includes: Based on the preset carbon flow analysis results, several evaluation indicators are determined, and the indicator attributes corresponding to each evaluation indicator are determined according to the indicator definition of each evaluation indicator; wherein, the indicator attributes include binding indicators and guiding indicators. The evaluation indicators are divided into different indicator dimensions, and all the indicator dimensions are combined to obtain the evaluation indicator system; wherein, the indicator dimensions include building dimension, transportation dimension, infrastructure dimension and open space dimension.

3. The evaluation method for low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The dynamic filtering of the evaluation indicators to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types specifically includes: Select one of the aforementioned scheme types as the screening type, and for the screening type, obtain the mean score and grade sum corresponding to each of the aforementioned evaluation indicators; The average score of the selected indicators exceeds a preset scoring threshold, and the evaluation indicators that are lower than the preset level threshold are selected as subset indicators. All the subset indicators are then combined to obtain the indicator subset corresponding to the type to be selected. Each of the aforementioned scheme types is selected as the type to be screened, and a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types is obtained through screening.

4. The evaluation method for low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes as described in claim 3, characterized in that, The process of obtaining the mean score and grade sum corresponding to each of the evaluation indicators specifically includes: Obtain the positive correlation scores from several reviewers regarding the positive correlation between each evaluation indicator and the type to be screened. Let the score of the i-th reviewer for the j-th indicator be... Then the mean score of index j for: Where m represents the total number of reviewers; For the same evaluation indicator, the positive correlation scores given by each reviewer to the indicator are ranked from highest to lowest, and the grade of the evaluation indicator is calculated based on the ranking results. The specific calculation formula is as follows: 。 5. The evaluation method for low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes as described in claim 3, characterized in that, After obtaining the subset of indicators, the following is also included: The average score of all subset indicators in the subset is summed to obtain the total score of the indicators, and the average score of the indicators is calculated based on the total score of the indicators. Based on the sum of the index scores and the average index score, the Kendall's coefficient of harmony for the subset of indicators is calculated; where, let the Kendall's coefficient of harmony be W, then: Where i is the index number. The sum of the scores for the aforementioned indicators. The average score of the indicators is N, where N is the total number of indicators; When the Kendall harmony coefficient is greater than a preset confidence threshold, the subset of indicators is determined to be valid; when the Kendall harmony coefficient is less than the preset confidence threshold, the subset of indicators is determined to be invalid.

6. The evaluation method for low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes as described in claim 2, characterized in that, The identification of the scheme type to be evaluated specifically includes: The unit type of the proposed evaluation scheme is determined based on the proportion of the total land area occupied by each land use type in the scheme to be evaluated; wherein the formula for calculating the proportion is: in The specific gravity is... The land area corresponding to a specific land use type. This refers to the total area of ​​the land used; Collect indicator data of preset core construction indicators and normalize the indicator data to obtain normalized data; wherein, the preset core construction indicators include building density, road network density, public service facility density and resident population density; Based on the normalized data, the environmental maturity index is calculated; wherein the specific calculation formula for the environmental maturity index is as follows: in, The environmental maturity index is mentioned above. It is the value of the k-th normalized data point. The maturity weight of this indicator is determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and ; When the environmental maturity index is greater than or equal to a preset judgment threshold, the unit attribute is determined to be an existing region; when the environmental maturity index is less than the preset judgment threshold, the unit attribute is determined to be an incremental region.

7. The evaluation method for low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes as described in claim 6, characterized in that, The step of determining the standard value corresponding to each of the evaluation indicators based on the type of the evaluation scheme specifically includes: The benchmark values ​​corresponding to each of the indicators to be evaluated are obtained from the preset standard data; wherein, the preset standard data is obtained from local standard documents; Based on the scheme type and the benchmark value, the standard value is calculated using a preset suggested value function; wherein, the specific formula for calculating the standard value is as follows: in, Let f() be the standard value, f() be the preset suggested value function, T be the cell type, and S be the cell attribute. The reference value; The constraints of the preset suggested value function include: for the constraint index, setting the corresponding standard value not less than the benchmark value; for the guidance index, setting the corresponding standard value according to the environmental maturity index; when the environmental maturity index is greater than or equal to the preset maturity threshold, setting the standard value less than or equal to the benchmark value; when the environmental maturity index is less than the preset maturity threshold, setting the standard value greater than the benchmark value.

8. The evaluation method for low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes as described in claim 2, characterized in that, The step of determining the evaluation result of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes of each indicator to be evaluated, the actual value of each indicator to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value specifically includes: Based on the indicator attributes of each indicator to be evaluated, the actual value of each indicator to be evaluated, and the corresponding standard value, calculate the compliance score of each indicator to be evaluated. The compliance scores of each of the aforementioned indicators to be evaluated are weighted and summed to obtain the comprehensive evaluation score of the proposed solution.

9. The evaluation method for low-carbon-oriented control detailed planning schemes as described in claim 8, characterized in that, The step of calculating the compliance score of each of the indicators to be evaluated based on its indicator attributes, actual value, and corresponding standard value specifically includes: For the aforementioned binding index, the formula for calculating the compliance score is: in, The actual value; For the guiding indicator, the formula for calculating the compliance score is: in, This is the preset sensitivity coefficient.

10. A low-carbon-oriented control-based detailed planning scheme evaluation device, characterized in that, include: The module includes a construction module, a filtering module, an identification module, and an evaluation module. The construction module is used to construct an evaluation index system; wherein, the evaluation index system includes several evaluation indicators corresponding to different index attributes; The filtering module is used to dynamically filter the evaluation indicators to obtain a subset of indicators corresponding to different scheme types; wherein, the scheme type is a two-dimensional matrix composed of unit type and unit attribute, the unit type is determined according to the land use type proportion of the planning unit, and the unit attribute is determined according to the built environment maturity index of the planning unit. The identification module is used to identify the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, determine the evaluation indicators of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator subset corresponding to the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated, and determine the standard value corresponding to each evaluation indicator based on the scheme type of the scheme to be evaluated. The evaluation module is used to collect the actual values ​​of each of the indicators to be evaluated, and to determine the evaluation result of the scheme to be evaluated based on the indicator attributes of each indicator, the actual value of each indicator and the corresponding standard value.

Images