差异化标准下长江经济带省际环境绩效比较研究

燕波; 孙启宏; 李小敏; 许亚宣

doi:10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20190198

差异化标准下长江经济带省际环境绩效比较研究

doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20190198

中国环境科学研究院环境政策与战略环评研究中心

详细信息

作者简介:
燕波(1993—),男,硕士,主要从事能源与环境政策研究,609134482@qq.com

通讯作者:
孙启宏 E-mail: sunqh@craes.org.cn

中图分类号: X821
计量
- 文章访问数: 549
- HTML全文浏览量: 199
- PDF下载量: 107
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2019-11-22
- 刊出日期: 2020-05-20

Comparative study of environmental performance in Yangtze River Economic Belt under different standards

Environmental Policy and Strategic Environmental Assessment Research Center,Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences

More Information

Corresponding author: SUN Qihong E-mail: sunqh@craes.org.cn

摘要

摘要: 为合理判断长江经济带11省(市)生态环境保护成效,通过构建环境绩效评价指标体系的方法开展环境绩效研究。考虑到经济发展水平对地区环保投入能力的影响,借助环境库兹涅茨曲线(EKC)与均值思想设定了不同经济发展水平下差异化的指标评价值,并结合熵值法计算出反映地区致力于生态环境保护努力程度的环境绩效指数(EPI)。结果表明:2011—2017年长江经济带的环境绩效整体呈上升态势,11省(市)EPI年均值由49.74增至61.70,但固体废物排放绩效有所下降;2017年11省(市)EPI从高到低依次为湖南(68.76)、安徽(66.62)、重庆(64.86)、四川(64.30)、浙江(61.26)、上海(60.96)、江西(59.53)、湖北(58.80)、贵州(58.68)、云南(57.65)、江苏(57.24),下、中、上游地区EPI平均得分分别是59.82、63.43、61.37,指数空间分布较为均衡;研究区域按照EPI与人均GDP可聚类划分为加速转型区、稳定发展区、缓慢提升区3种类型,针对不同类型地区分别提出差异化发展建议。研究采用的评价方法考虑了不同地区经济发展水平的差异,能在一定程度上反映各地区致力于生态环境保护的努力程度,可作为常规环境绩效研究的补充。
- 环境绩效指数 /
- 差异化评价 /
- 熵值法 /
- 环境库兹涅茨曲线 /
- 长江经济带
Abstract: In order to assess ecological environmental performance of 11 provinces (municipalities) in Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) reasonably, the environmental performance research was carried out by constructing environmental performance index (EPI) system. Considering the influence of economic development levels on regional environmental protection input capacity, the differential index evaluation values under different economic development levels were proposed using the Environmental Kuznets Curves (EKC) and the mean value theory, and EPI of 11 provinces (municipalities) which reflected the degree of regional efforts to environmental protection were calculated by using entropy method. The results showed that from 2011 to 2017, the environmental performance of YREB as a whole showed an upward trend and the annual average EPI of 11 provinces (municipalities) in YREB was increased from 49.74 to 61.70, but the solid waste control performance declined. In 2017, the EPI score of 11 provinces (municipalities) ranking from high to low was Hunan (68.76), Anhui (66.62), Chongqing (64.86), Sichuan (64.30), Zhejiang (61.26), Shanghai (60.96), Jiangxi (59.53), Hubei (58.80), Guizhou (58.68), Yunnan (57.65) and Jiangsu (57.24), and the average EPI of downstream reaches, middle reaches and upstream reaches was 59.82, 63.43 and 61.37,respectively, indicating that spatial distribution of environmental performance was relatively balanced. According to the clustering of EPI and GDP per capita, the 11 provinces (municipalities) were divided into three groups, i.e. accelerated transformation area, steady development area and slow upgrading area, to fit in different development schemes. The evaluation method reflected the efforts of each region to protect the ecological environment to a certain extent, by taking the differences of economic development level in different regions into account, which could provide effective supplement of conventional environmental performance research.
- environmental performance index /
- differential evaluation /
- entropy method /
- Environmental Kuznets Curve /
- Yangtze River Economic Belt

HTML全文

参考文献(34)

[1]	董战峰, 吴琼, 李红祥 , 等. 我国环境绩效评估制度建设的六大关键问题[J]. 环境保护与循环经济, 2013,33(9):4-11.
[2]	Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD environmental performance reviews:China 2007[M]. Paris:OECD, 2007: 15-32.
[3]	Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD environmental performance reviews:New Zealand 2017 highlights[R/OL]. Paris:OECD, 2007: 2-3.[2019-09-01]. https://apo.org.au/node/74763.
[4]	Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy,Center for International Earth Science Information Network. 2018 environmental performance index[R]. New Haven CT:Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 2018: 12-36.
[5]	中国科学院可持续发展战略研究组. 2006中国可持续发展战略报告:建设资源节约型和环境友好型社会[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2006: 110-154.
[6]	SEARCY C . Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems:a review and research agenda[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2012,107(3):239-253. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1038-z
[7]	CORMIER D, MAGNAN M . Investors’assessment of implicit environmental liabilities:an empirical investigation[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 1997,16(2):215-241.
[8]	黄和平, 伍世安, 智颖飙 , 等. 基于生态效率的资源环境绩效动态评估:以江西省为例[J]. 资源科学, 2010,32(5):924-931. HUANG H P, WU S A, ZHI Y B , et al. Dynamic evaluations of resources and environmental performance based on eco-efficiency:a case study of Jiangxi Povince[J]. Resources Science, 2010,32(5):924-931.
[9]	郝春旭, 董战峰, 葛察忠 , 等. 基于聚类分析法的省级环境绩效动态评估与分析[J]. 生态经济, 2015,31(1):154-157. HAO C X, DONG Z F, GE C Z , et al. Cluster analysis on Chinese provincial environmental performance evaluation[J]. Ecological Economy, 2015,31(1):154-157.
[10]	买亚宗, 孙福丽, 石磊 , 等. 基于DEA的中国工业水资源利用效率评价研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2014,28(11):42-47. MAI Y Z, SUN F L, SHI L , et al. Evaluation of China’s industrial water efficiency based on DEA model[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2014,28(11):42-47.
[11]	LI Y J, SHI X, EMROUZNEJAD A , et al. Environmental performance evaluation of Chinese industrial systems:a network SBM approach[J]. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2018,69(6):825-839.
[12]	SONG M L, PENG J, WANG J L , et al. Better resource management:an improved resource and environmental efficiency evaluation approach that considers undesirable outputs[J]. Resources,Conservation and Recycling, 2018,128:197-205.
[13]	SANDU A, BǍNICǍ A . Assessing the local environmental performance in Western Moldavia(Romania)[J]. Present Environment and Sustainable Development, 2015,9(1):63-79. doi: 10.1515/pesd-2015-0004
[14]	PIRES A, MORATO J, PEIXOTO H , et al. Sustainability assessment of indicators for integrated water resources management[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2017,578:139-147. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.217 pmid: 27838052
[15]	GARCÍA-ÁLVAREZ M T, MORENO B . Environmental performance assessment in the EU:a challenge for the sustainability[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018,205:266-280. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110005 pmid: 31989961
[16]	ZUO X, HUA H, DONG Z F , et al. Environmental performance index at the provincial level for China 2006-2011[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017,75:48-56. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.016
[17]	王婷, 袁增伟 . 基于“压力-状态-响应”模型的江苏省环境绩效评估研究[J]. 中国环境管理, 2017,9(3):59-65. WANG T, YUAN Z W . Environmental performance evaluation in Jiangsu Province based on pressure-state-response model[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management, 2017,9(3):59-65.
[18]	魏微, 尚英男, 江沂璟 , 等. 成都市环境绩效评估研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2018,28(增刊1):80-85. WEI W, SHANG Y N, JIANG Y J , et al. Research on environmental performance evaluation in Chengdu[J]. China Population,Resources and Environment, 2018,28(Suppl 1):80-85.
[19]	苏韵珲, 李耀初, 周劲风 , 等. 广州市环境绩效评估[J]. 环境与可持续发展, 2016,41(4):167-172. SU Y H, LI Y C, ZHOU J F , et al. Environmental performance evaluation of Guangzhou City[J]. Environment and Sustainable Development, 2016,41(4):167-172.
[20]	赵细康, 吴大磊, 曾云敏 . 基于区域发展阶段特征的绿色发展评价研究:以广东21地市为例[J]. 南方经济, 2018(3):42-54. ZHAO X K, WU D L, ZENG Y M . Research for green development assessment based on the characteristics of regional development stage:taking the 21 cities in Guangdong as an example[J]. South China Journal of Economics, 2018(3):42-54.
[21]	成艾华, 喻婉 . 长江经济带产业转移、产业分工与一体化发展[J]. 中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2018,38(6):128-133. CHENG A H, YU W . On industrial transfer,industrial division and integrated development of economic development belt along the Yangtze River[J]. Journal of South-Central University for Nationalities(Humanities and Social Sciences), 2018,38(6):128-133.
[22]	长江经济带生态环境保护规划[A/OL]. 北京:环境保护部. (2017-07-17)[2019-09-01]. .
[23]	NIEMEIJER D, de GROOT R . A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2008,8(1):14-25. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13030333 pmid: 26999180
[24]	曹颖, 曹东 . 中国环境绩效评估指标体系和评估方法研究[J]. 环境保护, 2008(14):36-38.
[25]	GROSSMAN G, KRUEGER A . Economic growth and the environment[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995,110(2):353-377. doi: 10.2307/2118443
[26]	THOMAS M S, SONG D Q . Environmental quality and development:is there a Kuznets Curve for air pollution emissions[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1994,27(2):147-162. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1031
[27]	KAIKA D, ZERVAS E . The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory:part A.concept,causes and the CO₂ emissions case[J]. Energy Policy, 2013,62(5):1392-1402. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.131
[28]	LI C S, LI Q L, LEI Z M , et al. The relationship between economics growth and energy consumption in China:a empirical analysis based on Energy Kuznets Curve[J]. Advanced Materials Research, 2014, 1073/1074/1075/1076:2457-2461.
[29]	HU J Q, HERNANDEZ-DEL-VALLE A, MARTINEZ-GARCIA M . Environmental pollution and economic growth in China:a test of the Environmental Kuznets Curve[J]. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 2017,5(10):92-100.
[30]	孙启宏, 乔琦, 谢明辉 , 等. 流域清洁生产潜力分析和技术评估:辽河流域案例研究[M]. 北京: 中国环境出版社, 2015: 22-23.
[31]	GORGIJ A D, KISI O, MOGHADDAM A A , et al. Groundwater quality ranking for drinking purposes,using the entropy method and the spatial autocorrelation index[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2017,76(7):269. doi: 10.1007/s12665-017-6589-6
[32]	HAN B L, WANG R S, TAO Y , et al. Urban population agglomeration in view of complex ecological niche:a case study on Chinese prefecture cities[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2014,47(1):128-136.
[33]	刘云浪, 蓝楠, 李小凡 . 我国危险废物产生量与经济发展的关系及政策启示:基于面板EKC模型的估计[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2016,23(5):29-35. LIU Y L, LAN N, LI X F . Panel EKC estimation of the relationship between hazardous waste generation and economic development in China and policy implications[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2016,23(5):29-35.
[34]	李华旭, 孔凡斌, 陈胜东 . 长江经济带沿江地区绿色发展水平评价及其影响因素分析:基于沿江11省(市)2010—2014年的相关统计数据[J]. 湖北社会科学, 2017(8):68-76.