Assessing provincial environment governance efficiency in China: A multi-agents participation perspective

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103838
Rui Yang , Lin Li , Junyang Chen , Meng Li , Ahtam Anwar , Huan Lu , Yingwen Chen
{"title":"Assessing provincial environment governance efficiency in China: A multi-agents participation perspective","authors":"Rui Yang ,&nbsp;Lin Li ,&nbsp;Junyang Chen ,&nbsp;Meng Li ,&nbsp;Ahtam Anwar ,&nbsp;Huan Lu ,&nbsp;Yingwen Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Effective environmental systems have been recognized as essential to achieving sustainable development. Existing research on enhancing the effectiveness of environmental systems has predominantly focused on the improvement of various environmental governance measures, neglecting the differences in governance effects among different agents in environmental governance. Taking China as an example, we study the environmental governance efficiency (EGE) of four agents including central government, local government, enterprises, and the public. To reflect the characteristics of China’s environmental governance system, namely, the government takes the lead and enterprises and the public participate together, a nested leader-follower game network data envelopment analysis is proposed. The results of 30 provinces from 2009 to 2018 show that although China’s average EGE has improved, it is only 0.528 in 2018, with a large room for improvement. Moreover, the gap of EGEs among areas is gradually increasing, especially between the eastern area and the middle and western areas. Furthermore, the gap among provinces in the eastern area has narrowed, while the opposite is true in the western area. Finally, the EGE of the central government in most provinces is consistent with that of the local government. However, there are only 7 provinces whose EGEs of four agents are above the average. The policy recommendations are proposed accordingly.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 103838"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001722","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Effective environmental systems have been recognized as essential to achieving sustainable development. Existing research on enhancing the effectiveness of environmental systems has predominantly focused on the improvement of various environmental governance measures, neglecting the differences in governance effects among different agents in environmental governance. Taking China as an example, we study the environmental governance efficiency (EGE) of four agents including central government, local government, enterprises, and the public. To reflect the characteristics of China’s environmental governance system, namely, the government takes the lead and enterprises and the public participate together, a nested leader-follower game network data envelopment analysis is proposed. The results of 30 provinces from 2009 to 2018 show that although China’s average EGE has improved, it is only 0.528 in 2018, with a large room for improvement. Moreover, the gap of EGEs among areas is gradually increasing, especially between the eastern area and the middle and western areas. Furthermore, the gap among provinces in the eastern area has narrowed, while the opposite is true in the western area. Finally, the EGE of the central government in most provinces is consistent with that of the local government. However, there are only 7 provinces whose EGEs of four agents are above the average. The policy recommendations are proposed accordingly.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国省级环境治理效率评估:多主体参与视角
有效的环境系统被认为是实现可持续发展的关键。现有关于提高环境系统有效性的研究主要集中在各种环境治理措施的改进上,忽视了环境治理中不同主体在治理效果上的差异。以中国为例,我们研究了中央政府、地方政府、企业和公众等四个主体的环境治理效率(EGE)。为反映我国环境治理体系中政府主导、企业和公众共同参与的特点,提出了嵌套的领导者-追随者博弈网络数据包络分析法。对 2009 年至 2018 年 30 个省份的研究结果表明,虽然我国平均 EGE 有所提高,但 2018 年仅为 0.528,还有较大的提升空间。而且,地区间的EGE差距逐渐拉大,尤其是东部地区与中西部地区之间的差距更大。此外,东部地区各省之间的差距有所缩小,而西部地区则相反。最后,大多数省份的中央政府与地方政府的经济平等指数是一致的。然而,只有 7 个省份的四个代理人的经济平等指数高于平均水平。据此提出政策建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Forest owners’ perceptions of machine learning: Insights from swedish forestry Understanding how landscape value and climate risk discourses can improve adaptation planning: Insights from Q-method Articulating futures: Community storylines and assisted ecosystem adaptation in the Great Barrier Reef Insights into the public engagement of coastal geoscientists Flood data platform governance: Identifying the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1