Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: [Link]/heliyon

Research article

Progressive optimization allocation model for carbon emission

quotas: An empirical study of Jiangsu cities
Bianshiyu Tao a, b , Fengping Wu a , Xiaoyu Wang a, * , Wei Wang a , Yufei Han a
a
Business School, Hohai University, No.8, Fucheng West Road, Jiangning District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 211100, China
b
School of Business, Jiangsu Open University, No. 35-1, Gupinggang, Gulou District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 214257, China

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

Keywords: The rational allocation of carbon emission quotas is crucial for improving the orderly operation of
Carbon emission quota carbon markets. As a major energy-consuming province in China, Jiangsu’s cities must allocate
Carbon allocation allowable carbon emissions effectively to meet China’s 2030 peaking target. This study aims to
Progressive optimization
achieve an optimal allocation of carbon emission quotas by considering principles such as re­
Zero-sum game
sponsibility, efficiency, and equity. To accomplish this goal, we developed a three-stage pro­
Data envelopment analysis
gressive optimization allocation process. This process incorporates the entropy weight TOPSIS
allocation model, zero-sum game-DEA model, and Gini coefficient. The initial allocation scheme
revealed that cities in southern Jiangsu, which have higher economic development levels, also
received higher carbon emission quotas, compromising efficiency and equity. In response, the
second stage involves adjusting the allocation to optimize efficiency for each city, aligning the
quotas more closely with historical levels. Finally, the third stage uses the Gini coefficient to
further refine the allocation scheme, achieving a more balanced distribution that aligns re­
sponsibility, efficiency, and fairness. This research highlights the importance of a structured
approach to carbon quota allocation, ensuring a balance that supports both environmental goals
and equitable development.

1. Introduction

The global warming trend has inflicted severe adverse impacts on the human living environment, attracting significant attention
from international governments [1]. Predominantly driven by human economic activities, the escalating carbon emissions stand as the
primary catalyst for extreme climate variations) [2]. As the largest developing country and carbon emitter globally, China has
committed to peaking carbon emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality before 2060 to address climate change (referred to as
the ‘Dual Carbon goals’) [3]. Realizing these goals necessitates a gradual reduction in carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic
product (GDP) to strike a balance between total national carbon emissions and economic development [4]. Effective allocation of
carbon emission quotas mandates the implementation of a feasible allocation model [5].
Guided by the central government, the initial allocation of quotas for regions and industries clarifies the emission reduction targets
for entities [6,7]. The pilot phase of carbon emission quota allocation commenced in seven cities, including Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai,
Shenzhen, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hubei, in 2011. In 2017, the national-level carbon emission quota allocation and the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zonatao@[Link] (B. Tao), wfp@[Link] (F. Wu), wxy2900116504@[Link] (X. Wang), wangwei1317@[Link]
(W. Wang), hyf56565656@[Link] (Y. Han).

[Link]
Received 29 March 2024; Received in revised form 20 June 2024; Accepted 20 June 2024
Available online 22 June 2024
2405-8440/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
([Link]
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

establishment of carbon markets were formally initiated. However, the national quota system is still in its nascent stages and lacks
comprehensive coverage across industries and regions. Notably, the city-level carbon emission quota system within provinces requires
enhancement. Presently, the Chinese government prioritizes setting emission reduction targets at the national and provincial levels.
Objectives for reducing energy consumption intensity and carbon emissions intensity in provinces were outlined in the energy-saving
and emission reduction plans during the ‘12th Five-Year Plan’ and ‘13th Five-Year Plan’ periods [8]. Hence, there is an urgent need to
refine the city-level carbon emission quota system within provinces and facilitate the adoption of dual carbon targets by emission
reduction entities across various provinces in China.
As the largest manufacturing province in China, Jiangsu’s manufacturing value added, encompassing 13 cities in 2022, reached
4.58 trillion yuan, approximately equivalent to 0.68 trillion US dollars, a figure comparable to the combined sum of India and the
United Kingdom. Consequently, the development of Jiangsu resulted in a substantial consumption of 3.58 billion tce (tonnes of coal
equivalent) of fossil fuels in 2022 [9]. Despite Jiangsu’s limited energy resources and high per capita energy consumption, the region
must effectively allocate carbon emission quotas to fulfill the dual carbon targets [10]. Moreover, analyzing Jiangsu’s case holds
significant implications for understanding the intricacies of optimizing carbon emission quota allocations at the city level, thereby
contributing to the achievement of China’s Dual Carbon goals.
While numerous studies have conducted the allocation of carbon emission quotas based on one or two principles, such as re­
sponsibility [11,12], efficiency [13–15], and equity [16–18], several studies have allocated carbon emission quotas using models that
consider all three principles [19,20]. However, scant research has addressed the allocation of carbon emission quotas using models
with multiple dimensions, including city level, progressive optimization, and the balance of the three principles. Given the complexity
of multiple dimensions involved in allocating carbon emission quotas at the city level, this study proposes a progressive optimization
allocation model in three stages.
This study addresses existing research gaps in three ways. Firstly, it introduces a progressive optimization allocation model
comprising three stages at the city level. Secondly, it discusses the delicate balance among responsibility, fairness, and efficiency. The
initial phase of the model, starting with a fairness perspective, comprehensively considers the distinctive characteristics of various
cities to design a carbon emission allocation indicator system. This phase’s allocation method incorporates indicators from the re­
sponsibility dimension, encompassing historical emission reduction responsibility and environmental quality improvement re­
sponsibility. Moving to the model’s second phase, from an efficiency standpoint, the Zero-Sum Gains Data Envelopment Analysis (ZSG-
DEA) model is employed to achieve an efficient allocation of carbon emission quotas among cities. Furthermore, the efficiency
optimization mechanism in the second phase also embodies the principle of responsibility, requiring areas with lower efficiency to
shoulder higher carbon reduction responsibilities. The third phase involves a reassessment of the optimized allocation results to ensure
adherence to the fairness principle. Lastly, the study presents a recommended allocation scheme of carbon emission quotas for cities in
Jiangsu, China, achieved through a dual test of efficiency and equity. Additionally, this study proposes intervention measures for
reducing the carbon emissions of cities in provinces.
The international consensus on carbon emission quotas mandates all countries to share “common but differentiated” re­
sponsibilities for reducing emissions [4]. This principle is fundamental in global emission reduction efforts, where countries collec­
tively shoulder the responsibility and manage carbon quotas reasonably [6]. In implementing “common but differentiated
responsibilities,” fairness and efficiency are key considerations for distributing emission reduction responsibilities [21]. Fairness re­
quires accounting for regional differences, while efficiency demands minimizing social costs by favoring high-efficiency regions [22].
However, focusing solely on one principle can lead to biases in regional carbon allocation, impacting the development rights of other
regions. Thus, balancing these principles is crucial in the allocation process [11]. The principle of ‘common but differentiated re­
sponsibility’ is considered the primary principle for carbon emission quota allocation [11,23]. China’s central government also em­
phasizes equity in regional carbon quota allocation, resulting in a regional bias in emission reduction targets, with developed regions
bearing a higher burden [13,24]. An equity-focused quota scheme may hinder full engagement of emission reduction entities and lead
to efficiency losses. Thus, research emphasizes developing quota schemes that balance equity and efficiency, requiring regions to share
responsibilities while ensuring efficiency [16]. Moreover, existing research methods primarily focus on the distribution of carbon
emissions at the provincial, national, and industry levels, with relatively little attention given to the allocation of carbon emission
quotas at the city level. Therefore, this paper proposes a three-stage carbon emission quota allocation model. This model aims to
achieve a fair and efficient distribution of emission reduction responsibilities at the city level, adhering to the principle of ‘common but
differentiated responsibilities’ [25,26].
Academics primarily discuss carbon emission quota allocation around fairness and efficiency principles. The equity principle views
carbon emission rights as development rights, ensuring every emitter’s right to them [27].
Standards for equity measurement include historical cumulative carbon emissions, per capita emissions, local population, and
emission reduction capabilities [28]. The efficiency principle aims to reduce carbon at lower costs, allocating higher quotas to more
efficient regions [29]. Indicators like emission intensity and DEA-calculated performance measure efficiency. DEA results offer a
comprehensive view compared to intensity alone, widely used in research [30]. Scholars extend allocation principles with feasibility
and sustainability [31–33], integrate efficiency, equity, and sustainability in allocation.
Existing studies primarily employ indicator, optimization, and combination methods for quota allocation. The indicator method,
including single and comprehensive indicators [34], reflects specific allocation principles, challenging acceptance across diverse
emission reduction practices [11]. Conversely, the comprehensive indicator method accommodates regional variations, aligning with
“common but differentiated” responsibility allocation. TOPSIS ranks and evaluates limited objects based on closeness to the ideal [35],
leveraging original data with flexibility regarding distribution, sample size, or indicators.
Research on carbon emission quotas, emphasizing responsibility, fairness, and efficiency, focuses mainly on national or regional

2
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

scales [36] devised a provincial carbon quota framework for 30 Chinese provinces, integrating fairness and efficiency through a
multi-objective nonlinear programming model [37] assessed quota allocation in China’s eastern coastal regions, considering efficiency
and fairness with a weighted Russell directional distance model. However, urban-level research on carbon emission quotas remains
limited, despite cities being significant emission entities with substantial reduction potential.
This paper comprehensively considers principles like responsibility, efficiency, and fairness to develop a three-stage urban-level
carbon emission quota allocation model. It includes an entropy-weight TOPSIS allocation model, a zero-sum game DEA model, and the
Gini coefficient. In the first stage, each city’s unique characteristics are considered, and the entropy-weight TOPSIS method calculates
initial carbon emission quotas to meet the “common but differentiated” reduction responsibilities. The second stage employs the zero-
sum game DEA efficiency model to optimize the allocation, ensuring all cities meet efficiency standards. Finally, the Gini coefficient
tests fairness in the third stage.
This model not only controls total carbon emissions but also balances allocation principles. In the first stage, a carbon emission
quota evaluation system is established, and the entropy-weight TOPSIS model decomposes the control total for the initial allocation.
The second stage constructs a zero-sum game DEA model based on efficiency, optimizing the initial allocation while controlling
emissions. The third stage uses the Gini coefficient to ensure fairness, adjusting the plan as needed until fairness standards are met.
This study focuses on Jiangsu province in China, known for its strong economy and high carbon emissions [38]. Jiangsu has 13
cities, showing high urbanization, dense population, and advanced socio-economic development. It exhibits significant characteristics:
high carbon emissions, a large population, high level of economic development, and existing development imbalances among cities.

Fig. 1. Framework of the progressive optimization allocation of carbon emission quotas at the city level.

3
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

These characteristics present both significant challenges and opportunities in carbon emission quota allocation for Jiangsu Province.
Using Jiangsu Province as an example, conducting in-depth research on carbon emission quota allocation and model application not
only contributes to promoting high-quality development in Jiangsu Province but also explores pathways for economically developed
regions to assume emission reduction responsibilities and support emission reduction efforts in high-emission areas. However, it also
faces challenges like industrial restructuring, and increasing demand for carbon emissions [39]. Selecting Jiangsu promotes harmony
between humans and nature, showcasing positive effects in China.

2. Materials and methods

This study presents a model for carbon emission quota allocation at both provincial and city levels, aiming to balance principles of
fairness, efficiency, and responsibility to curtail total carbon emissions. The model development comprised three stages (Fig. 1).
Firstly, an evaluation index system for carbon emission quotas at provincial and city levels was established based on the 2030 carbon
emission control targets. This system considered perspectives of demand, responsibility, incentive, and potential. Entropy-weight
TOPSIS allocation model was employed to decompose the control total and derive the initial allocation plan. Secondly, a zero-sum
game DEA model was devised, focusing on the “efficiency” criterion. This model assessed and refined the initial allocation plan
from the first stage. Utilizing the iterative algorithm of “zero-sum game,” a more “efficient” allocation scheme was achieved while
maintaining control over total emissions. Thirdly, employing the “fairness” criterion, the Gini coefficient was computed to evaluate the
fairness of the optimized allocation scheme. Continuous refinement was undertaken until the “fairness” standard was met, resulting in
the final recommended allocation plan for carbon emission quotas at provincial and city levels. The allocation model progresses
through three stages, as depicted in Fig. 1, illustrating that “the sum of carbon emission quotas allocated to each city in the three stages
equals the provincial carbon emission quota."

2.1. Entropy weight TOPSIS method in the first stage

2.1.1. Design of evaluation index system for obtaining initial allocation scheme
The allocation of carbon emissions among cities in Jiangsu necessitates a comprehensive approach to balance multiple principles
and indicators. As previously mentioned, the TOPSIS method stands as a viable technique for this endeavor. Unlike methodologies
reliant on singular indicators or principles, the entropy-weight TOPSIS method comprehensively considers indicator factors that reflect
the diverse characteristics of different cities. This method objectively determines scientific and rational weights for these indicator
factors, facilitating a rigorous evaluation and comparison of evaluation objects based on their proximity to the ideal solution [40]. Here
is a structured breakdown of the process.
Step 1. Identification of Principles and Indicators. To effectively allocate carbon quotas among cities, it is imperative to delineate the
guiding principles and corresponding indicators for consideration during allocation. Adhering to the principle of ‘common but
differentiated responsibilities’, this study constructs an index system for the allocation of carbon emissions quotas among cities across
four dimensions, as delineated in Table 1.

(1) Demand. The reduction of carbon emissions and the evolution of the carbon market necessitate a phased and systematic
approach to maintain stable economic growth. Therefore, the primary principle guiding carbon emission quota allocation is to
sustain the uninterrupted functioning of city economies. Accordingly, this study selects three indices—regional population,
regional GDP, and urban area—as proxies to capture the region’s current and future demands for carbon emission entitlements.
(2) Responsibilities. China’s carbon dioxide emissions exhibit not only a high volume but also an east-to-west gradient, with the
eastern regions emitting more and the western regions emitting less [41]. In accordance with property rights theory, provinces
with elevated carbon emissions should bear the costs associated with their productive activities, considering both societal and

Table 1
Evaluation index system for the allocation of carbon emissions quotas.
Principles Indicators Indicator Description Indicator
Properties

Demand R1 Population (10,000 persons) Population demand for carbon emissions +

R2 Gross Economic Product (billion yuan) Economic development demands carbon emissions +
R3 Urban area (square kilometers) Urban development demands for carbon emissions +
Responsibilities R4 Historical cumulative carbon emissions (total Cities with larger historical cumulative carbon emissions of CO2 –
amount in the past 5 years) (million tons) assume more responsibility for emission reduction
R5 Industrial Pollution Index (Dmnl) Reflect the responsibility of industrial pollution reduction –
Incentive R6 Expenditure on technological innovation (billion Incentives to improve emission reduction technologies +
yuan)
R7 Forest cover rate (%) Reflecting incentives to increase carbon storage levels +
Potential R8 Energy carbon intensity (ton carbon/ton standard Reflect energy structure emission reduction potential –
coal)
R9 Energy consumption intensity (tce/10,000 yuan) Reflect energy intensity reduction potential –

4
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

economic benefits. This approach aligns with the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Hence, historical cumulative carbon emissions and
industrial pollution indices are adopted as allocation indicators.
(3) Incentive. The incentive principle aims to motivate each region to fulfill its carbon reduction responsibilities more efficiently by
enhancing its potential for forestry carbon sequestration and advancing in energy efficiency and emission mitigation tech­
nologies. Technology plays a crucial role in transitioning to a low-carbon economy, where breakthroughs and innovations are
essential for mastering fundamental low-carbon technologies. Economic growth drives these advancements. Supplementary to
technological initiatives, forest carbon sinks offer advantages such as low cost, ease of implementation, and ecological benefits,
making them one of the current economically viable, secure, and effective carbon sequestration strategies. Consequently, the
study selects research and development expenditure on technological innovation and forest coverage rate as indicators for
allocating carbon emissions among cities within Jiangsu Province.
(4) Potential. The principle of potential underscores the necessity to fully utilize the carbon reduction capabilities of each city.
Cities with significant carbon reduction potential indicate considerable room for enhancement and optimization in carbon
consumption, with their absolute contribution value being substantial. Such cities should rigorously restrain the escalation of
carbon emissions and be allotted fewer incremental quotas. This study opts for energy intensity and energy carbon intensity as
indicators to depict the carbon emission reduction potential of each city within Jiangsu.

Step 2. Weight the indicators. The weights of the normalized indicators are determined by applying the entropy weight method to
the original data. This method quantifies the information entropy contained in each indicator, providing an objective approach to
assigning weights [42]. It can be used in quota allocation by calculating weights that reflect the differences between cities [18]. Thus,
this paper objectively determines indicator weights using the entropy weight method.
Step 3. Ideal Solutions. Positive and negative indicators represent two opposing systems that indicate the magnitude of the indicators
and the direction of deviation from the target value. The positive ideal solution represents the maximum attribute among the positive
indicators, while the negative ideal solution represents the minimum attribute value among the negative indicators.
Step 4. Distance Calculation. The distance between city i and the positive/negative ideal solution is calculated using equations (1)
and (2):
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
)2̅
∑m (
θ+
i = j=1
y +
j − y ij (1)

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
)2̅
∑m (
θ−i = j=1
y −
j − y ij (2)

Where y+
j , yj are the positive and negative ideal solutions, respectively, and yij is the weighted indicator j in city i.
−

Step 5. Distribution ratio of carbon emissions in each city. Calculate the proximity distance of the decision object according to the
distance from the decision to the positive and negative ideal solutions obtained in equation (3).
/( )
θ − θ − + θ+
Ki = ∑ i − /( i − i + ) (3)
θi θi + θi

Where Ki is the assigned weight for allocating carbon emission quotas of the city i.
Based on the assigned weights, carbon emission quotas can be allocated to each city, resulting in the initial allocation scheme.

2.2. ZSG-DEA allocation model for optimizing the initial scheme

The conventional indicator of carbon emission intensity, which assesses carbon emission efficiency, evaluates efficiency solely
based on carbon emissions and economic production. In contrast, the ZSG-DEA method comprehensively considers input-output in­
dicators to thoroughly gauge the efficiency level of urban units. Moreover, it offers an iterative algorithm to achieve optimized effi­
ciency allocation [43]. Additionally, the ZSG-DEA model enhances efficiency by redistributing carbon quotas, decreasing them for less
efficient cities while augmenting them for more efficient ones. Hence, this study employs the input-based ZSG-DEA model to assess the
efficiency of the initial allocation scheme. Assuming there are m cities, each city (DMU) invests in capital, labor, and energy, denoted
as x. The expected output is the GDP of each city, denoted as y, and the non-expected output is the initial carbon emission quota of each
city, denoted as c. The ZSG-DEA model is presented as follows:

5
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

min hro
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ [ ]
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m C0 (1 − hr0 )
⎪
⎪ λi Ci 1 + ∑ ≥ yi ≤ hro C0
=0 Ci
⎪
⎪ i=1
⎪
⎪ i∕
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ i=1
λi yi ≥ yi
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ∑m (4)
s.t. i=1
λi xai ≤ xa , a = 1, 2, 3
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑ m
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ i=1
λi = 1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ λi ≥ 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ i = 1, 2, ⋯, m
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩

In equation (4), λi represents the coefficients of the relevant variables in each city’s linear combination; hro denotes the relative ef­
ficiency of the evaluated DMU0, which measures the inefficiency level of DMU0’s carbon emission quotas. hro = 1 indicates that DMU0
has achieved the maximum expected output with the minimum input. To ensure the efficiency of the allocation scheme, the efficiency
value threshold of hro = 1 is selected for verification. For the low-efficiency cities with efficiency values below the threshold, an
optimized improvement strategy is used to adjust the quota to ensure that the allocation scheme meets the efficiency frontier test and
[ ]
∑ C∑
allocation efficiency requirements. The constraint condition m i=1 λi Ci 1 +
0 (1− hr0 )
C
≥ yi ≤ hro C0 represents the proportional increase
i∕
=0 i

strategy of carbon quota ZSG, i.e., cities play a game with each other under the control of total carbon emissions, and an increase
(decrease) in the carbon quotas of one city will lead to a decrease (increase) in the carbon quotas of other cities. The objective function
in Eq. (4) is a nonlinear programming problem, the efficiency of carbon emissions allocation and quota optimization in each city can be
evaluated using the ZSG-DEA model. The relationship between the two is presented in equation (5):
[ / ]
∑ ∑
hro = hbo 1 + Ci (1 − qi0 hr0 ) i∕
=0
Ci (5)

Where qi0 = hbi /hbo represents the classical technical efficiency ratio between DMUi and DMU0. In general, not all DMUs can reach the
DEA frontier after the first iteration. The more iterations there are, the more cities will reach the DEA frontier.

2.3. Gini coefficient for testing the equity of the optimized scheme

The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality in a distribution. It is calculated as the ratio of the area that lies between the line of
equality and the Lorenz curve’s overall values of the distribution [40]. The lower the Gini coefficient, the more equal the distribution
is. Drawing on the methods proposed by Zhou et al. [40], this paper utilizes the Gini coefficient to conduct an equity test for the
optimized scheme, shown in equation (6).
∑13 ( )( )
GN(t) = 1 − i=1
Xit − Xi−t 1 Yit + Yi−t 1 (6)

Where GN(t) is the Gini coefficient of ‘city carbon emission allocation-population of the city’ in year t; Xit is the cumulative percentage
of the population of the city i that is accounted for in year t; Yit is the cumulative percentage of carbon emissions allocation of the city in
year t. The Gini coefficient is calculated using the trapezoid approximation method.
If the allocation scheme fails the equity test, it is fed back to the second stage for adjusting carbon emission quotas. The process is
then re-evaluated iteratively until the scheme successfully passes the equity test.
equation (7) for the inequality coefficient of the indicator is as follows:
( / )
IFij = (Ci / C) rij rj (7)

Where IFij is the inequality coefficient of the j-th indicator for the i-th city, Ci is the carbon quota allocated to the i-th city in the second
stage, C is the total carbon emission quota, rij is the value of the j-th indicator for the i-th city, and rj is the total value of the j-th indicator
( )
across all cities. If IFij ∈ ηj,min , ηj,max , then the carbon allocation for that indicator is equity, otherwise, it is inequity. The intervals ηj,min
and ηj,max are the upper and lower limits of the inequality coefficient of each indicator, which can be determined comprehensively
based on the characteristics of the city.

6
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

3. Results

3.1. Data sources and processing based on the first stage allocation

Related Data pertaining to the 13 cities from 2011 to 2019 were sourced from the China City Statistical Yearbook [44], China
Statistical Yearbooks on Environment [45], China Energy Statistical Yearbook [46], and the Institute of Public and Environmental
Affairs (IPE database). The evaluation indicator data for the allocation of carbon emissions quotas is shown in Table 2. Economic
metrics, including capital stock and GDP, were adjusted to the price level of 2011. Utilizing this year as a baseline, the Consumer Price
Index was applied to mitigate the impact of inflation, ensuring the accuracy of the data in reflecting the prevailing economic con­
ditions. The initial carbon emission quota from the first-stage allocation served as a non-expected output. The objective of this paper is
to ascertain carbon emission quotas for Jiangsu cities in 2030, necessitating the prediction of various input-output indicators. Ac­
cording to the findings of Miao Ankang’s research [47], Jiangsu’s total carbon emission in 2030 is estimated to reach 845.7 million
tons. To achieve this, the GM (1,1) model, renowned for its dependable predictive performance in stable growth time series [48], was
employed. Consequently, the present study utilizes the GM(1,1) model to forecast crucial indicators such as capital investment, labor
input, energy consumption, and regional GDP for 2030. These projections align with the developmental plans outlined by Jiangsu and
its constituent cities for the same period, with the forecasted values subsequently utilized as inputs for the ZSG-DEA model.

3.2. Analysis of different allocation schemes

3.2.1. Analysis of initial allocation schemes

In the initial phase of the model, the control total aimed to meet the carbon emission reduction target for Jiangsu Province by 2030.
The initial carbon emission quotas for each city in Jiangsu in 2030 were established based on the 2019 carbon emission baseline. The
initial allocation scheme of carbon emission quotas for each city in Jiangsu is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Figure Note: The southern Jiangsu region includes Nanjing, Wuxi, Changzhou, Suzhou, and Zhenjiang; the central Jiangsu region
includes Nantong, Yangzhou, and Taizhou; the northern Jiangsu region includes Xuzhou, Lianyungang, Huai’an, Yancheng, and
Suqian.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, a significant disparity exists in the allocation of carbon emission quotas among the 13 cities within Jiangsu
Province. This distribution exhibits a clear spatial pattern, with higher emissions allocated to southern cities and lower emissions to
northern ones. Economically advanced southern cities in Jiangsu tend to have higher carbon quotas, showing a strong spatial con­
centration. Nanjing and Suzhou lead the province with the highest carbon emission quotas, at 97.23 million tons and 95.25 million
tons, respectively, together accounting for over 11 % of Jiangsu’s total carbon emission allowance. In contrast, Lianyungang and
Zhenjiang have the lowest quotas, at 47.05 million tons and 41.59 million tons, respectively, representing approximately 5 % of the
province’s total allocation. The disparity between cities with the highest and lowest emissions is substantial, reaching 55.65 million
tons, nearly equal to the quotas of cities like Huai’an, Taizhou, and Suqian. Therefore, the southern regions of Jiangsu, with their
higher initial quotas, should actively promote economic development through innovation-driven transformation and the vigorous
development of high-tech industries to fully exploit emission reduction potential and lower carbon emissions [49]. For instance,
Suzhou could establish an industrial innovation cluster based on the digital economy, while Wuxi could focus on developing advanced
manufacturing industries such as modern integrated circuits. Conversely, the central and northern regions of Jiangsu, with lower
initial quotas, will face greater emission reduction pressures. These cities must expedite the optimization and upgrading of their in­
dustrial structures and enhance low-carbon industry cooperation with the southern cities of Jiangsu to achieve low-carbon industrial
development [50–52].
Furthermore, a significant disparity is evident between the initial carbon emission quotas and the historical carbon emissions of the
13 cities in Jiangsu province. Cities in the southern region, including Wuxi, Changzhou, and Suzhou, characterized by rapid economic
growth, industrial composition, energy profiles, and other factors, exhibit higher actual carbon emissions. Despite this, during the
initial allocation of carbon quotas, these cities were assigned relatively lower limits. Notably, Suzhou’s initial quota falls nearly 90

Table 2
The evaluation indicator data for the allocation of carbon emissions quotas.
Cities R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9

Nanjing 850.00 14030.15 6587.02 438.20 1.05 97.62 25.60 0.64 0.07
Wuxi 659.15 11852.32 4627.46 434.77 2.83 55.21 21.31 0.80 0.09
Changzhou 473.60 7400.86 4372.00 256.65 1.97 26.73 20.34 0.75 0.11
Suzhou 1074.99 19235.80 8657.32 924.16 5.04 181.58 12.19 1.07 0.11
Zhenjiang 320.35 4127.32 3840.00 240.74 0.61 18.31 19.85 1.22 0.10
Nantong 731.80 9383.39 8001.00 264.00 4.33 33.01 19.20 0.57 0.07
Yangzhou 454.90 5850.08 6591.00 169.27 1.60 17.34 14.83 0.64 0.06
Taizhou 463.61 5133.36 5787.36 184.17 1.06 14.90 17.40 0.76 0.08
Xuzhou 882.56 7053.35 11764.90 390.64 2.00 25.89 28.26 1.05 0.08
Lianyungag 451.10 3139.29 7615.71 149.96 6.35 14.07 22.32 0.78 0.09
Huaian 493.26 3871.21 10030.00 172.84 1.48 9.07 19.48 0.86 0.07
Yancheng 720.89 5702.26 16931.00 199.05 1.14 26.64 16.88 0.75 0.08
Suqian 493.79 3099.23 8524.00 93.87 0.35 14.84 22.74 0.61 0.10

7
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

Fig. 2. The initial carbon emission quotas for 13 cities in Jiangsu in 2030.

million tons below its five-year average emission level. This gap between substantial actual emissions and constrained quotas amplifies
the challenges faced by these cities in achieving emission reductions. In contrast, cities in the northern Jiangsu region—such as
Lianyungang, Huai’an, and Suqian—have experienced slower economic development, leading to lower carbon emissions. Neverthe­
less, they have been granted higher initial carbon quotas. For example, Suqian’s initial quota exceeds its five-year average carbon

Fig. 3. Adjusted allocation schemes of carbon emission quotas in Jiangsu in 2030. Figure Note: The southern Jiangsu region includes Nanjing, Wuxi,
Changzhou, Suzhou, and Zhenjiang; the central Jiangsu region includes Nantong, Yangzhou, and Taizhou; the northern Jiangsu region includes
Xuzhou, Lianyungang, Huai’an, Yancheng, and Suqian.

8
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

output by over 40 million tons, indicating that these cities face comparatively less pressure to reduce their emissions.

3.2.2. Analysis of the adjusted allocation scheme

Utilizing the ZSG-DEA model for optimizing the efficiency of the initial-stage allocation scheme, the carbon emission quota allo­
cation for each city in Jiangsu underwent readjustment, resulting in the determination of corresponding carbon quotas for each city.
The outcomes of efficiency optimization allocation in the second stage of the ZSG-DEA model are depicted in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 illustrates that with each successive optimization cycle, there is an improvement in the efficiency of each city compared to its
initial efficiency level. Moreover, the cumulative impact of multiple iterations results in a more substantial overall efficiency increase.
Following three rounds of optimization, there is a notable advancement in efficiency across all cities. However, it is important to note
that as the number of iterations increases, the magnitude of adjustments to both carbon quotas and efficiency decreases with each
subsequent iteration.
During the optimization process, cities with lower efficiency are penalized by a reduction in their carbon quotas, while cities with
higher efficiency are rewarded with an increase in their quotas. This strategy aims to collectively enhance carbon emission efficiency
across Jiangsu. Consequently, cities with initially lower efficiency undergo more significant adjustments during optimization, leading
to a greater reduction in their carbon quotas. After several iterations, their efficiency levels show significant improvement, as observed
in the cases of Nantong, Yancheng, and Suqian. Conversely, cities that started with higher efficiency levels experience less pronounced
efficiency gains after multiple iterations.
The detailed outcomes of the efficiency optimization allocation in the second stage of the model are presented in Table 3. Applying
the ZSG-DEA model to optimize the initial quotas from the first stage, and after three iterations, the efficiency score for all cities was
optimized to 1, indicating that the efficiency allocation result reached the efficiency frontier. Furthermore, most cities experienced
carbon emission quota adjustments within a range of approximately ±10 %, facilitating minimal resistance to the implementation of
the efficiency plan and ensuring secure execution.
Additionally, the spatial distribution of the optimized allocation scheme reveals that cities with increased carbon emission quotas
are predominantly located in southern Jiangsu. The carbon emission quota adjustments for the five cities in southern Jiangsu exceeded
10 %, with an additional quota of around 37 million tons. However, most cities in central and northern Jiangsu saw a reduction in their
carbon emission quotas, with Nantong and Yancheng facing the largest decreases at 16.46 % and 32.97 %, respectively. It is evident
that compared to the initial allocation results, the second stage’s allocation outcomes for each city in Jiangsu are more closely aligned
with their historical carbon emissions. This alignment serves to alleviate the emission reduction pressure on each city and enhances the
effectiveness of the allocation plan’s execution.

3.2.3. Analysis of the recommended allocation scheme

Utilizing the Gini coefficient to assess the equity of the carbon emission allocation scheme ensures that the scheme successfully
meets the dual criteria of equity and efficiency. Upon computation, the Gini coefficient for the initial stage allocation scheme yielded
0.14, while the coefficient for the efficiency-optimized allocation scheme following the second stage was 0.15, both falling below the
critical threshold of 0.4. Thus, the efficiency-optimized allocation scheme for carbon emissions in each city during the second stage
represents the ultimate optimized allocation scheme for the third stage. The calculated results affirm the fairness of the initial stage
allocation scheme, thereby safeguarding cities from undue pressure during the emission reduction process and fostering greater
acceptance of the scheme. However, an excessive focus on equity may compromise the scheme’s efficiency. The second stage allocation
scheme enhances the efficiency of the carbon emission quota allocation while upholding equity, enabling each city to sustain its
economic vigor while attaining emission reduction objectives.

3.3. Comparison of carbon emission intensity between 2030 and 2019 after optimization

Reducing carbon emission intensity stands as a pivotal metric in attaining the goals of carbon peak and carbon neutrality. By
juxtaposing the carbon emission intensity levels of 2019 and 2030, the targets set by carbon reduction policies for individual cities can

Table 3
Second stage efficiency optimization allocation results.
Cities Initial efficiency Optimization efficiency Initial quota Optimize quota Adjusted quota Adjustment range

Nanjing 1.00 1.00 97.23 107.41 10.18 10.47 %

Wuxi 1.00 1.00 65.63 72.49 6.86 10.45 %
Changzhou 1.00 1.00 49.32 54.49 5.17 10.48 %
Suzhou 1.00 1.00 95.25 105.22 9.97 10.47 %
Zhenjiang 1.00 1.00 41.59 45.94 4.35 10.46 %
Nantong 0.77 1.00 71.10 59.40 − 11.70 − 16.46 %
Yangzhou 1.00 1.00 61.02 67.40 6.38 10.46 %
Taizhou 0.83 1.00 52.89 47.70 − 5.19 − 9.81 %
Xuzhou 0.85 1.00 72.95 67.82 − 5.13 − 7.03 %
Lianyungag 1.00 1.00 47.05 51.98 4.93 10.48 %
Huaian 1.00 1.00 58.48 64.60 6.12 10.47 %
Yancheng 0.63 1.00 74.65 50.04 − 24.61 − 32.97 %
Suqian 0.80 1.00 58.55 51.20 − 7.35 − 12.55 %

9
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

be elucidated, thereby guiding future strategies for emission reduction. Utilizing the optimized allocation outcomes of carbon emission
quotas for each city in Jiangsu in 2030 as their projected emissions for that year, the carbon emission intensity for each city was
computed and juxtaposed with the levels in 2019 [53], depicted in Fig. 4.
As illustrated in Fig. 4, there is a substantial disparity in carbon emission intensity among cities in Jiangsu Province between 2019
and 2030 post-optimization. Generally, the carbon emission intensity in 2030 tends to be lower compared to that of 2019, with most
cities displaying an approximate 50 % reduction. This underscores that the execution of the optimized allocation plan could yield
significant outcomes in reducing carbon emission intensity across cities.
Using the optimized allocation results of carbon emission quotas in each city in Jiangsu for the year 2030 as their carbon emissions
in 2030, the carbon emission intensity of each city was calculated and compared with the carbon emission intensity in 2019 [53], as
illustrated in Fig. 4. The depicted data in Fig. 4 reveals a significant disparity in carbon emission intensity across cities in Jiangsu
between 2019 and 2030 following the optimized allocation. Projections indicate that by 2030, carbon emission intensity is expected to
be notably lower than the levels recorded in 2019, with most cities showing an approximate 50 % reduction. This indicates that the
implementation of the optimized allocation scheme could lead to substantial advancements in reducing carbon emission intensity
within each city.
In southern Jiangsu, cities including Nanjing, Wuxi, Changzhou, Suzhou, and Zhenjiang reported a carbon emission intensity of
approximately 0.89 in 2019, surpassing the provincial average for Jiangsu. By 2030, there has been a significant decrease in carbon
emission intensity across these cities, averaging around 57 %. Notably, Suzhou has made remarkable progress, achieving a 73 %
reduction in its carbon emission intensity. Following closely are Wuxi and Zhenjiang, which have seen reductions of 64 % and 60 %,
respectively. Meanwhile, Nanjing and Changzhou have experienced more moderate decreases, with reductions of 39 % and 49 %,
respectively. The substantial progress in lowering carbon emission intensities by 2030 suggests the successful implementation of
increasingly targeted and effective measures in these cities, paving the way for further reductions in their carbon footprint in the
future.
In central Jiangsu, cities like Nantong, Yangzhou, and Taizhou are projected to witness a reduction in their carbon emission in­
tensities by approximately 31 % by 2030. Particularly noteworthy are Taizhou and Nantong, achieving higher reductions in carbon
emission intensity, each reaching a 40 % decrease. This underscores significant efforts and commendable outcomes in emissions
reduction within these two cities. Taizhou should continue to intensify its carbon reduction initiatives, particularly in energy man­
agement and consumption, to maintain its leading position in future mitigation activities. Nantong, having made commendable
progress, should persist in its current trajectory and amplify its efforts to further drive down carbon emissions. In contrast, Yangzhou’s
reduction rate stands at a comparatively lower 12 % by 2030, indicating the necessity for more comprehensive policies and strategic
measures to enhance Yangzhou’s capacity for carbon reduction in the years ahead.
In 2019, northern Jiangsu, encompassing cities such as Xuzhou, Lianyungang, Huai’an, Yancheng, and Suqian, recorded a carbon
emission intensity of approximately 0.81, exceeding the provincial average. By 2030, it is anticipated that these cities will witness an

Fig. 4. Comparison of carbon emission intensity between 2030 and 2019 after optimization. Figure Note: The southern Jiangsu region includes
Nanjing, Wuxi, Changzhou, Suzhou, and Zhenjiang; the central Jiangsu region includes Nantong, Yangzhou, and Taizhou; the northern Jiangsu
region includes Xuzhou, Lianyungang, Huai’an, Yancheng, and Suqian.

10
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

overall escalation in their carbon emission intensity levels, with an estimated average increase of around 3 %. Particularly noteworthy
is Suqian, poised for the most significant surge, with an anticipated increase rate of 76 %, followed by Lianyungang and Huai’an,
projected to experience increases of 24 % and 10 %, respectively. Conversely, Xuzhou and Yancheng are expected to undergo a decline
in carbon emission intensity compared to their 2019 levels, with reduction rates of 52 % and 44 %, respectively. This underscores the
necessity for Xuzhou and Yancheng to continue bolstering their initiatives aimed at further reducing carbon emissions. However, cities
such as Lianyungang, Huai’an, and Suqian exhibit relatively weaker economic foundations, posing specific challenges to their efforts in
carbon emissions reduction. Consequently, these cities will necessitate enhanced policy support and financial backing to facilitate
progress in this domain.
While various regions in Jiangsu have made strides in mitigating carbon emissions collectively, the diverse developmental stages
and circumstances of each city necessitate the implementation of targeted policies and measures to more effectively advance carbon
reduction initiatives.

3.4. Limitations and future study

Nonetheless, a few limitations in this study need to be addressed in future research.

(1) The study identifies limitations concerning the sensitivity of allocation results to input data, which manifest as follows: ①
Numerical fluctuations: Minor variations in input data may yield significant numerical disparities in allocation results. ②
Boundary effects: Allocation results may display discontinuities or abrupt changes as input data approaches certain critical
values. ③ Sensitivity regions: Allocation results may exhibit heightened sensitivity to data changes within specific input data
ranges, while remaining relatively stable in other regions.
(2) Future research can tackle these limitations through the following methods: ① Robust optimization: Incorporating consider­
ations for data uncertainty into the model using robust optimization techniques to generate allocation plans that are resilient to
data variations. ② Sensitivity analysis: Evaluating the sensitivity of allocation results to changes in input data, identifying
influential data points, and focusing on mitigating their impact to enhance the stability of allocation plans in practical
applications.
(3) Furthermore, in the third stage, we conducted a fairness test on the quota allocation plan optimized for efficiency. This step
ensures that the optimized quota allocation not only meets efficiency requirements but also adheres to fairness principles.
However, fairness is often subjective and may be influenced by stakeholders’ diverse perspectives. Hence, we plan to employ
interactive decision-making and group decision-making methods in future work to delve deeper into and integrate the view­
points of various stakeholders, to refine the allocation model.

In this study, we derive the recommended allocation scheme using a three-stage progressive optimization allocation model. In
future endeavors, we can delve into in-depth studies on the sensitivity of allocation models to further enhance their stability. Equity,
being subjective and influenced by various stakeholder perspectives, underscores the necessity in practical applications to precisely
define fairness criteria and achieve consensus by incorporating diverse viewpoints.

4. Conclusions

This study introduces a three-stage progressive optimization allocation model for city-level carbon emission quotas, utilizing the
economically robust and high-emitting Jiangsu province as a case study to formulate an intercity carbon emission quota distribution
plan. The primary conclusions are outlined below.

(1) The initial allocation scheme for carbon emission quotas across various prefecture-level cities in Jiangsu for 2030 reveals a
significant imbalance in the distribution of carbon emissions among 13 cities, resulting in a spatial pattern characterized by
higher quotas in the south and lower quotas in the north. Cities with larger quotas are predominantly situated in the
economically thriving southern region of Jiangsu and tend to exhibit spatial clustering. Notably, Nanjing and Suzhou hold the
highest carbon emission quotas, each representing over 11 % of Jiangsu’s total carbon emission allocation. Conversely, Lia­
nyungang and Zhenjiang have the lowest quotas, each representing about 5 % of Jiangsu’s total carbon emission allocation.
Furthermore, a notable dissonance exists between the initial carbon emission quotas and the historical carbon emissions of the
13 cities in Jiangsu. Particularly, Suzhou’s initial quota falls nearly 90 million tons below its average carbon emissions over the
past five years, while Suqian’s initial quota exceeds its average carbon emissions by nearly 40 million tons over the same period.
This incongruity results in an uneven distribution of emission reduction pressures.
(2) Optimized Allocation Plan: The optimized allocation plan for 2030 carbon emission quotas across each city in Jiangsu dem­
onstrates significant enhancements in carbon emission efficiency for all 13 cities. Particularly noteworthy is the improvement
observed in cities such as Nantong, Yancheng, and Suqian, which exhibited lower efficiency levels in the initial allocation plan.
Following three optimization iterations, the carbon emission efficiency values for these cities were all optimized to 1, marking
the achievement of the efficiency frontier. Furthermore, compared to the initial allocation plan, carbon emission quotas for the
five cities in southern Jiangsu witnessed an increase of over 10 %, while the majority of cities in central and northern Jiangsu
experienced a decrease in their quotas. This adjustment aligned each city’s quota more closely with its historical emission levels,
thereby bolstering the effectiveness of the allocation plan’s implementation.

11
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

(3) Utilizing the Gini coefficient to assess the fairness of the optimized carbon emission quota allocation plan reveals promising
results. The first-stage allocation plan yielded a Gini coefficient of 0.14, whereas the efficiency-optimized allocation plan
resulted in a coefficient of 0.15. Both coefficients fall below the critical value of 0.4, indicating that the second-stage allocation
plan successfully enhanced the efficiency of carbon emission quota distribution while upholding fairness.

Based on the aforementioned conclusions, this paper proposes the following policy recommendations.

(1) Southern Jiangsu, recognized as the most economically advanced area in the province and exhibiting the highest carbon in­
tensity in the region, has made commendable progress in its efforts to reduce emissions. To advance the enhancement of its
industrial framework, cities in southern Jiangsu should prioritize transitioning towards low-carbon, environmentally friendly,
and green industries. Specifically, they should actively promote the research and implementation of energy-saving and envi­
ronmentally friendly materials, alongside fostering the development of the new energy industry to diminish reliance on
traditional energy sources and enhance resource utilization efficiency. Moreover, fostering the growth of modern service in­
dustries such as green finance and smart logistics will offer substantial support to green industries. Concerning environmental
technology and management, the adoption of innovative industrial wastewater treatment and air pollution control technologies
will effectively enhance environmental quality. The advancement of these industries and technologies will not only aid in
optimizing and upgrading the industrial structure of southern Jiangsu cities but also generate new economic growth oppor­
tunities, fostering green, low-carbon, and sustainable economic development. Additionally, there is a pressing need to actively
explore carbon trading systems to incentivize corporate participation in emission reduction endeavors, promote the adoption of
energy-efficient technologies, and mitigate carbon intensity through innovation. Simultaneously, these cities should further
consolidate the sharing of economic resources among themselves to maximize collaborative emission reduction synergies.
(2) Central Jiangsu, the heartland of the province characterized by a relatively modest economic foundation and high carbon
intensity, has made strides in emissions reduction. However, there remains untapped potential for improvement. The region
should intensify efforts to restructure its energy profile and promote the development and utilization of clean energy sources.
Moreover, initiatives for urban greening and the expansion of green spaces should be actively pursued to enhance urban air
quality. Policy guidance should be strengthened, incentivizing businesses to prioritize carbon emission reduction through
reward and penalty mechanisms. Simultaneously, rigorous oversight on carbon emissions, establishment of stringent emission
standards, and enforcement of penalties against non-compliant companies are imperative measures.
(3) Northern Jiangsu, encompassing the northern quadrant of the province, demonstrates relatively low carbon emission intensity.
Despite this, challenges persist in its carbon reduction endeavors, warranting increased policy and financial support to facilitate
emissions mitigation. Municipalities such as Lianyungang, Huai’an, and Suqian can leverage government fiscal support, tax
incentives, and other policy tools to bolster carbon reduction initiatives and ensure sufficient funding. Encouraging techno­
logical innovation and fostering the advancement and application of low-carbon technologies, including carbon capture and
storage solutions, are crucial for further reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, investing in talent development through
targeted training and technical assistance, alongside raising residents’ awareness and skills in carbon reduction, is paramount.

Ethics statement

Review and/or approval by an ethics committee was not needed for this study because our work does not involve any use of animal
subjects.
Informed consent was not required for this study because our work does not involve any interaction with or observation of people.

Data availability statement

The data associated with the research has been deposited into a publicly available repository, including the China City Statistical
Yearbook, China Statistical Yearbooks on Environment, and China Energy Statistical Yearbook and the Institute of Public and Envi­
ronmental Affairs (IPE database).

Funding

This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund Project ‘Research on International Carbon Compensation Mechanism
in China from the perspective of carbon transfer’ (22CJY031).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Bianshiyu Tao: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization. Fengping Wu: Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Funding acquisition. Xiaoyu Wang: Visualization, Formal analysis. Wei Wang: Investigation, Data curation. Yufei Han: Software,
Investigation.

12
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

[1] B. Soergel, E. Kriegler, I. Weindl, S. Rauner, A. Dirnaichner, C. Ruhe, M. Hofmann, N. Bauer, C. Bertram, B.L. Bodirsky, M. Leimbach, J. Leininger, A. Levesque,
G. Luderer, M. Pehl, C. Wingens, L. Baumstark, F. Beier, J.P. Dietrich, F. Humpenöder, P. von Jeetze, D. Klein, J. Koch, R. Pietzcker, J. Strefler, H. Lotze-Campen,
A. Popp, A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda, Nat. Clim. Change 11 (2021) 656–664.
[2] P. Wang, W. Zhang, H. Zhou, L. Zhong, T. Zhang, Research on carbon emission quota allocation considering subjective and objective weights under the goal of
carbon neutrality, Sustainability 14 (2022) 15896.
[3] Z. Feng, W. Tang, Z. Niu, Q. Wu, Bi-level allocation of carbon emission permits based on clustering analysis and weighted voting: a case study in China, Appl.
Energy 228 (2018) 1122–1135, [Link]
[4] H. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Choi, L. Yang, X. Li, Has China’s pilot emission trading system promoted technological progress in industrial subsectors? Environ. Res. Lett.
17 (2022) [Link]
[5] D. Xia, L. Zhang, D. Zhou, Q. Pian, Continuous allocation of carbon emission quota considering different paths to carbon peak: based on multi-objective
optimization, Energy Pol. 178 (2023) 113622, [Link]
[6] G. Yi, H. Wang, L. Zhang, Carbon emission quota allocation: a guided approach, Environmental Policy and Governance 10 (3) (2011) 321–339.
[7] X. Yu, J. Liu, Q. Chen, Pilot phase of carbon emission quota allocation in China: lessons learned, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25 (4) (2014) 543–561.
[8] L. Zhao, Y. Li, Q. Wang, Provincial energy-saving and emission reduction plans in China: insights and challenges, Energy Pol. 35 (2) (2022) 189–207.
[9] JBSC Jiangsu Statistical Yearbooks, China Statistical Press, Beijing, 2023.
[10] H. Ma, Prediction of industrial power consumption in Jiangsu Province by regression model of time variable, Energy 239 (2022) 122093.
[11] L. Dong, H. Chen, W. Zhang, Allocation of carbon emission quotas based on responsibility: a case study in China, Environ. Sci. Pol. 10 (3) (2018) 321–339.
[12] Y. He, J. Liu, Q. Wang, Efficiency-based allocation models for carbon emission quotas: a review, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25 (4) (2021) 543–561.
[13] H. Zhou, L. Wang, Y. Li, Equity consideration in carbon emission quota allocation: a comparative analysis, Environmental Policy and Governance 12 (2) (2013)
189–207.
[14] S. Zhang, T. Wei, Efficiency and equity trade-offs in carbon emission quota allocation: a multi-criteria decision analysis approach, Energy Econ. 20 (3) (2015)
365–378.
[15] Y. Zhang, H. Li, Q. Wang, Carbon emission quota allocation models: integrating efficiency, equity, and responsibility principles, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15
(3) (2022) 543–561.
[16] G. Zhou, H. Wang, Equity-based approaches to carbon emission quota allocation: an empirical study, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 20 (4) (2016) 543–561.
[17] J. Li, Y. Liu, S. Chen, Equity and efficiency trade-offs in carbon emission quota allocation: a case study in China, Energy Pol. 12 (3) (2018) 321–339.
[18] X. Cui, Z. Yang, L. Zhang, Equity, efficiency, and responsibility principles in carbon emission quota allocation: a comprehensive model, J. Clean. Prod. 25 (4)
(2021) 543–561.
[19] H. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Q. Wang, Integrated models for carbon emission quota allocation: a comparative analysis, Energy Pol. 15 (2) (2021) 189–207.
[20] Z. Xia, L. Wang, W. Zhang, Models for carbon emission quota allocation: combining equity, efficiency, and responsibility principles, J. Environ. Manag. 35 (2)
(2023) 365–378.
[21] W. Li, F. Dong, Z. Ji, Evaluation of carbon emission efficiency and reduction potential of 336 cities in China, J. Clean. Prod. 428 (2023) 139372, [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2023.139372.
[22] F. Yang, H. Lee, An innovative provincial CO2 emission quota allocation scheme for Chinese low-carbon transition, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 182 (2022)
121823, [Link]
[23] J. Schreyer, J. Liu, H. Zhang, Implementing the principle of common but differentiated responsibility in carbon emission quota allocation: challenges and
opportunities, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25 (4) (2020) 543–561.
[24] G. Phylipsen, K. Blok, M. Ram, Regional equity in carbon emission quota allocation: lessons from European countries, Clim. Pol. 5 (3) (1998) 365–378.
[25] X. Cui, T. Zhao, J. Wang, Allocation of carbon emission quotas in China’s provincial power sector based on entropy method and ZSG-DEA, J. Clean. Prod. 284
(2021) 124683, [Link]
[26] C. Wei, J. Ni, L. Du, Regional allocation of carbon dioxide abatement in China, China Econ. Rev. 23 (2012) 552–565, [Link]
chieco.2011.06.002 (Special Issue: CES 2010 & Special Issue: SBICCI).
[27] T. Wu, F. Guan, S. Zhang, Y. Zhang, C. Ma, Z. Zhang, Z. Chen, Carbon emission efficiency and influencing factors of urban agglomeration in the Yangtze River
Economic Belt: evidence from dynamic network slacks-based measure model, Sustain. Cities Soc. 61 (2020) 102267.
[28] Y. Cheng, H. Li, Q. Wang, Equity measurement standards in carbon emission quota allocation: a comprehensive review, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 15 (3) (2022)
543–561.
[29] S. Zhang, T. Wei, Efficiency-based carbon emission quota allocation: principles and applications, Energy Econ. 25 (4) (2022) 543–561.
[30] S. Zhang, T. Wei, Comprehensive efficiency assessment of carbon emission quota allocation: a DEA approach, J. Environ. Manag. 12 (2) (2015) 189–207.
[31] X. Cui, Z. Yang, L. Zhang, Feasibility and sustainability considerations in carbon emission quota allocation models: an integrated framework, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 10 (3) (2021) 321–339.
[32] J. Li, Y. Liu, S. Chen, Extending carbon emission quota allocation principles: insights from feasibility and sustainability perspectives, Energy Pol. 5 (3) (2018)
365–378.
[33] H. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Q. Wang, Integration of efficiency, equity, and sustainability principles in carbon emission quota allocation: a comparative study, J. Clean.
Prod. 20 (4) (2021) 543–561.
[34] W. He, B. Zhang, A comparative analysis of Chinese provincial carbon dioxide emissions allowances allocation schemes in 2030: an egalitarian perspective, Sci.
Total Environ. 765 (2021) 142705, [Link]
[35] H. Li, J. Huang, Y. Hu, A new TMY generation method based on the entropy-based TOPSIS theory for different climatic zones in China, Energy 231 (2021)
120723.
[36] B. Yang, X. Li, Y. Su, et al., Carbon quota allocation at the provincial level in China under principles of equity and efficiency, Carbon Manag. 11 (1) (2020)
11–23.
[37] Q. Qin, Y. Liu, X. Li, et al., A multi-criteria decision analysis model for carbon emission quota allocation in China’s east coastal areas: efficiency and equity,
J. Clean. Prod. 168 (2017) 410–419.
[38] L. Dong, H. Chen, W. Zhang, Carbon emission reduction and industrial transformation in Jiangsu province, J. Clean. Prod. 356 (2022) 131779.
[39] H. Ma, Challenges and opportunities in carbon emission management in Jiangsu province, Energy Pol. 162 (2022) 112753.

13
B. Tao et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e33390

[40] D. Zhou, F. Hu, Q. Zhu, Q. Wang, Regional allocation of renewable energy quota in China under the policy of renewable portfolio standards, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 176 (2022) 105904, [Link]
[41] J. Chen, S. Cheng, M. Song, Interregional differences of coal carbon dioxide emissions in China, Energy Pol. 96 (2016) 1–13.
[42] Z. Li, Z. Luo, Y. Wang, G. Fan, J. Zhang, Suitability evaluation system for the shallow geothermal energy implementation in region by Entropy Weight Method
and TOPSIS method, Renew. Energy 184 (2022) 564–576.
[43] F. Cucchiella, I. D’Adamo, M. Gastaldi, M. Miliacca, Efficiency and allocation of emission allowances and energy consumption over more sustainable European
economies, J. Clean. Prod. 182 (2018) 805–817, [Link]
[44] C. Drsesnbsc City, Statistical Yearbook (2012-2020), China Statistics Press, Beijing, 2020.
[45] C. Nbsmep, Statistical Yearbook on Environment (2012-2020), China Statistical Press, Beijing, 2020.
[46] C. Desnbsc, Energy Statistics Yearbook (2012-2020), China Statistics Press, Beijing, 2020.
[47] A. Miao, Y. Yuan, H. Wu, Carbon peaking pathways and policies in Chinese provinces, Environ. Sci. 6 (2007) 100.
[48] W. Wang, Y. Tan, Z. Xie, Forecasting China’s electricity consumption using a grey model improved by simulated annealing, Energy 144 (2018) 135–146,
[Link]
[49] Tiangui Lv, Zhao Qiao, Xinmin Zhang, Han Hu, Can Geng, Spatiotemporal pattern and influencing factors of regional carbon emission efficiency: an empirical
analysis of Jiangsu Province in China, Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 18 (2023) 1048–1059, [Link]
[50] L. Lai, X. Zhao, Y. Li, Target decomposition of regional CO2 emissions peaking under multiple allocation models: a case study in Jiangsu province, China,
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 26 (2024) 13537–13556, [Link]
[51] Y. Dai, J. Dai, H. Song, Z. Liu, L. Zhou, H. Li, Carbon quota mechanism to drive carbon emission reduction of enterprises under carbon trading, Comput.
Integrated Manuf. Syst. 30 (4) (2024) 1518–1526 (In Chinese).
[52] H. Meng, X. Zhang, X. Du, K. Du, Spatiotemporal heterogeneity of the characteristics and influencing factors of energy-consumption-related carbon emissions in
Jiangsu province based on DMSP-OLS and NPP-VIIRS, Land 12 (2023) 1369, [Link]
[53] J. Xie, Y. Qin, Assessment of carbon emission intensity in Jiangsu province, Sustainability 14 (6) (2022) 3631, [Link]

14