China’s environmental problems have long been criticized. The Communist Party of China (CPC) and the government have increasingly paid attention to developing environmental protection and included the construction of an ecological civilization in the “Five-in-One” development strategy. The improvement of regional eco-efficiency is an important way to realize the coordinated development of the entire society, and environmental policy instruments are a powerful means to enhance regional eco-efficiency. This paper categorizes environmental policy instruments into mandatory, hybrid, and voluntary types. Based on panel data from 31 provinces in China from 2005 to 2015, the paper discusses the impact of environmental policy instruments on regional eco-efficiency and the means of the impact. The research shows that (1) mandatory and hybrid environmental policy instruments play a significant role in promoting regional eco-efficiency, while the role of voluntary instruments is not significant in promoting regional eco-efficiency; (2) hybrid and mandatory environmental policy instruments have negative interactions; and (3) the level of economic development will positively affect the role of hybrid environmental policy instruments in promoting regional eco-efficiency but negatively affect the role of mandatory instruments in promoting regional efficiency.

No abstract

Based on policy instrument theory and a case of low-carbon city development (Qihe County in Shandong), this study examined the policy instruments adopted for low-carbon city development in China and the effectiveness of these instruments. All the policies adopted by the piloted city from 2008 and 2014 were collected, coded, and analyzed. A two-dimensional analytical framework was developed based on a trichotomous policy instrument categorization and low-carbon city connotation. The results showed that the key goal of China’s low-carbon city construction is to develop low-carbon technology and low-carbon energy. Compulsory policy instruments are the most used and most effective, while voluntary policy instruments are rarely used. Further results indicated that when the ratio of compulsory instruments and mixed instruments comes to 2:1, the combination of policy instruments can lead to the optimal completion degree. It seems difficult to balance the stability of various policy instruments with the overall high completion degree. Chinese local governments are more accustomed to compulsory policy instruments. This reminds policymakers to pay more attention to the potential of voluntary instruments and mixed instruments in building low-carbon cities.

Local emergency cooperation agreements (LECA) led by local governments have increasingly become an important measure to address public crisis. In China, local governments have also launched such LECA to deal with occupational accidents and diseases. In this study, a quasi‐experimental design was used to evaluate the effects and spatial spillover of LECA on work safety performance improvements. Several econometric models were applied based on provincial panel data (2001–2019). The results show that: (1) LECA reduce both the number and mortality rate of workplace accidents in signatory provinces. (2) LECA can also induce a scale effect, which means that signatories can induce positive spillover effects on work safety performance in neighboring signatory provinces. (3) The analysis also identified negative spillover effects for neighboring non‐signatory provinces, indicating that LECA may lead to spatial spillover of industrial risks. (4) Further analysis indicated that the comprehensive effect of LECA is positive but not significant. (5) The spatial spillover of industrial risks due to LECA mainly occurs in the midwestern region, and positive spillover effect exists between the eastern and western regions due to the economic correlation factors. In addition, general recommendations for regional crisis cooperation among subnational governments are provided.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the global experiences of community responses to the COVID-19 epidemic.MethodFive electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science) were searched for peer-reviewed articles published in English, from inception to October 10, 2021. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts. A systematic review (with a scientific strategy for literature search and selection in the electronic databases applied to data collection) was used to investigate the experiences of community responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThis review reported that community responses to COVID-19 consisted mainly of five ways. On the one hand, community-based screening and testing for Coronavirus was performed; on the other hand, the possible sources of transmission in communities were identified and cut off. In addition, communities provided medical aid for patients with mild cases of COVID-19. Moreover, social support for community residents, including material and psychosocial support, was provided to balance epidemic control and prevention and its impact on residents' lives. Last and most importantly, special care was provided to vulnerable residents during the epidemic.ConclusionThis study systematically reviewed how communities to respond to COVID-19. The findings presented some practical and useful tips for communities still overwhelmed by COVID-19 to deal with the epidemic. Also, some community-based practices reported in this review could provide valuable experiences for community responses to future epidemics.