City-level environmental performance in China

Abstract

Measuring cities’ environmental performance can provide an analytical foundation for evaluating and comparing the governmental efforts in improving environmental performance and promoting sustainable development. In this paper, we employ an Environmental Performance Index (EPI) to measure the environmental performance of 105 prefecture-level cities from 2006 to 2013 in China. Based on the city-level results, we can further derive the EPIs of different regions as well as the country. Our empirical results showed that there exists a large variation in the environmental performance of different cities. From the regional perspective, the EPI of eastern region was higher than that of western region, although the two regions were close to each other. The difference of EPI increasing led to an unstable increase in the overall EPI of the country. Furthermore, based on influence factor analysis, economic scale and industrial structure had a significant impact on the environmental performance of cities and then came up with suggestions to formulate the environmental policies, keeping in view the economic background and the other pragmatic characteristics of cities.

Keywords

Environmental performance / City / Influence factors / China / Environmental Performance Index

References

[1] Athanassiadis A, Christis M, Bouillard P, Vercalsteren A, Crawford RH, Khan AZ. Comparing a territorial-based and a consumption-based approach to assess the local and global environmental performance of cities. J Clean Prod, 2016, 173: 112-123

[2] Bevilacqua M, Braglia M. Environmental efficiency analysis for ENI oil refineries. J Clean Prod, 2002, 10(1): 85-92

[3] Callens I, Tyteca D. Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: a productive efficiency perspective. Ecol Econ, 1999, 28(1): 41-53

[4] Courcelle C, Kestemont MP, Tyteca D, Installe M. Assessing the economic and environmental performance of municipal solid waste collection and sorting programmes. Waste Manag Res, 1998, 16(3): 253-262

[5] Ebert U, Welsch H. Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach. J Environ Econ Manag, 2004, 47(2): 270-283

[6] Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C. Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat, 1989, 71(1): 90-98

[7] Färe R, Grosskopf S, Tyteca D. An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms-application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecol Econ, 1996, 18(2): 161-175

[8] Färe R, Grosskopf S, Hernandez-Sancho F. Environmental performance: an index number approach. Resour Energy Econ, 2004, 26(4): 343-352

[9] Färe R, Grosskopf S Jr, Pasurka CA. Social responsibility: US power plants 1985–1998. J Prod Anal, 2006, 26(3): 259-267

[10] Färe R, Grosskopf S Jr, Pasurka CA. Toxic releases: an Environmental Performance Index for coal-fired power plants. Energy Econ, 2010, 32(1): 158-165

[11] Golany B, Roll Y, Rybak D. Measuring efficiency of power plants in Israel by data envelopment analysis. IEEE Trans Eng Manag, 1994, 41(3): 291-301

[12] Hadri K, Whittaker JM. Efficiency, environmental contaminants and farm size: testing for links using stochastic production frontiers. J Appl Econ, 2001, 2(1): 337-356

[13] Hailu A, Veeman TS. Alternative methods for environmentally adjusted productivity analysis. Agric Econ, 2001, 25(2–3): 211-218

[14] Jung EJ, Kim JS, Rhee SK. The measurement of corporate environmental performance and its application to the analysis of efficiency in oil industry. J Clean Prod, 2001, 9(6): 551-563

[15] Koehler DA, Spengler JD. The toxic release inventory: fact or fiction? A case study of the primary aluminum industry. J Environ Manag, 2007, 85(2): 296-307

[16] Lee T, Yeo GT, Thai VV. Environmental efficiency analysis of port cities: slacks-based measure data envelopment analysis approach. Transp Policy, 2014, 33(4): 82-88

[17] Loiseau E, Junqua G, Roux P, Bellon-Maurel V. Environmental assessment of a territory: an overview of existing tools and methods. J Environ Manag, 2012, 112(112): 213-225

[18] Lovell CAK, Pastor JT, Turner JA. Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: a comparison of European and non-European countries. Eur J Oper Res, 2007, 87(3): 507-518

[19] Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (2017) Bulletin on environmental conditions in China of 2016. Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China Web. http://www.zhb.gov.cn/hjzl/articles/environmentalquality/. Accessed 31 May 2017

[20] Piot-Lepetit I, Vermersch D. Pricing organic nitrogen under the weak disposability assumption: an application to the French pig sector. J Agric Econ, 2010, 49(1): 85-99

[21] Piot-Lepetit I, Vermersch D, Weaver RD. Agriculture’s environmental externalities: DEA evidence for French agriculture. Appl Econ, 1997, 29(3): 331-338

[22] Pittman RW. Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Econ J, 1983, 93(372): 883-891

[23] Pollesch NL, Dale VH. Normalization in sustainability assessment: methods and implications. Ecol Econ, 2016, 130: 195-208

[24] Reinhard S, Lovell CAK, Thijssen G. Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: an application to Dutch dairy farms. Am J Agric Econ, 1999, 81(1): 44-60

[25] Reinhard S, Lovell CAK, Thijssen GJ. Environmental efficiency with multiple environmentally detrimental variables; Estimated with SFA and DEA. Eur J Oper Res, 2000, 121(2): 287-303

[26] Sarkis J. A methodological framework for evaluating environmentally conscious manufacturing programs. Comput Ind Eng, 1999, 36(4): 793-810

[27] Sarkis J, Cordeiro JJ. An empirical evaluation of environmental efficiencies and firm performance: pollution prevention versus end-of-pipe practice. Eur J Oper Res, 2001, 135(1): 102-113

[28] Sarkis J, Weinrach J. Using data envelopment analysis to evaluate environmentally conscious waste treatment technology. J Clean Prod, 2001, 9(5): 417-427

[29] Taskin F, Zaim O. The role of international trade on environmental efficiency: a DEA approach. Econ Model, 2001, 18(1): 1-17

[30] The State Council (2017) Circular of the State Council on the issuance of the “13th Five-Year” energy-saving and emission-reduction program of work. Central people’s government of the People’s Republic of China Web. http://www.gov.cn/index.htm/policy/filelibrary/. Accessed 5 Jan 2017

[31] Yang QS, Zhang Y, Li YJ. Research on environmental efficiency evaluation of urban agglomerations in northeast China based on DEA model. Econ Geogr, 2012, 32(9): 51-60

[32] Yang L, Ouyang H, Fang K, Ye L, Zhang J. Evaluation of regional environmental efficiencies in China based on super-efficiency-DEA. Ecol Indic, 2015, 51: 13-19

[33] Zhang J, Zeng W, Shi H. Regional environmental efficiency in china: analysis based on a regional slack-based measure with environmental undesirable outputs. Ecol Indic, 2016, 71: 218-228

[34] Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL. Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite environmental index: an objective measure. Ecol Econ, 2006, 59(3): 305-311

[35] Zhou P, Delmas MA, Kohli A. Constructing meaningful environmental indices: a nonparametric frontier approach. J Environ Econ Manag, 2017, 85: 21-34

[36] Zofío JL, Prieto AM. Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: the case of CO₂ emissions from OECD industries. Resour Energy Econ, 2001, 23(1): 63-83

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China(71573119)