IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i11p4787-d1662367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty Analysis of Provincial Carbon Emission Inventories: A Comparative Assessment of Emission Factors Sources

Author

Listed:
  • Xianzhao Liu

    (School of Earth Sciences and Spatial Information Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China)

  • Jiaxi Liu

    (School of Economics, Guangxi University for Nationalities, Nanning 530006, China)

  • Chenxi Dou

    (School of Earth Sciences and Spatial Information Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China)

Abstract

Enhancing the precision of carbon accounting not only improves climate policy design, but also contributes directly to sustainability goals by enabling more targeted and accountable emission reduction strategies. Therefore, accurate carbon inventories are foundational to evidence-based climate action and sustainable development planning. This study estimates the carbon emissions of Hunan Province from 2016 to 2020 using the sectoral approach and energy activity data across four major sectors—industrial production, thermal power generation, transportation, and residential life. Emission factors (EFs) were drawn from three different sources: direct measurements, IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) default values, and published literature. An improved Monte Carlo simulation method was employed to assess the uncertainty of carbon emission accounting associated with different EF sources. The experimental results indicated that carbon emissions calculated based on the literature and default EFs were systematically higher than those derived from empirical measurements, primarily due to discrepancies in the industrial and power generation sectors. In a representative year (2017), the carbon emission estimated based on measured EFs produced the narrowest confidence intervals, reflecting lower uncertainty (−5.31–8.17%), while the uncertainties of carbon emissions calculated using the literature and default EFs were −6.88–9.03% and −5.77–9.94%, respectively. The industrial carbon emissions were the dominant source of overall uncertainty, while the transportation carbon emission had a comparatively minor impact. Importantly, across all departments, the use of measured EFs significantly reduced the uncertainty of carbon inventories, reinforcing the value of locally calibrated data. These findings underscore the urgent need for improved EF measurement systems and standardized accounting practices to support the reliability of subnational carbon inventories.

Suggested Citation

  • Xianzhao Liu & Jiaxi Liu & Chenxi Dou, 2025. "Uncertainty Analysis of Provincial Carbon Emission Inventories: A Comparative Assessment of Emission Factors Sources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4787-:d:1662367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4787/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4787/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4787-:d:1662367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.