Ecological Well-Being Performance Evaluation of Chinese Major Node Cities along the Belt and Road

Abstract

Under the constraints of resources and the environment, improving the urban ecological well-being performance (EWP) is a fundamental requirement and inevitable choice for urban ecological civilization construction and sustainable development. In this paper, 36 Chinese major node cities along the Belt and Road were selected as the research area, and an EWP evaluation index system was constructed. The two-stage Super Network Slack-based measure (Super-NSBM) model was used to evaluate the static EWP from 2011 to 2018, and the Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index was used to evaluate the dynamic EWP. It was found that: (1) The EWP value of 36 Chinese major node cities along the Belt and Road from 2011 to 2018 did not reach effectiveness, with Sanya, Shenzhen, and Haikou being the top three performers. (2) In terms of two-stage efficiency, the ecological economic efficiency in the first stage was significantly lower than the economic well-being efficiency in the second stage, which indicated that the low ecological economic efficiency was the main reason for the low average value of the EWP. (3) From the dynamic analysis results, the Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index experienced a fluctuating upward trend, and the technical change was the main factor for the improvement in the EWP. Finally, policy recommendations were proposed based on the above findings. This study will contribute to the sustainable development of Chinese major node cities along the Belt and Road, and can provide a reference for other Belt and Road regions.

What Is the State of Development of Eco-Wellbeing Performance in China? An Analysis from a Three-Stage Network Perspective

“…Since then, many scholars have started to conduct studies using this approach, for example, Hou et al [64] and Xia and Li [60] decomposed EWP into ecological economic efficiency and economic welfare efficiency. However, they usually only remain in a two-stage research paradigm [65][66][67][68]. The closest to the idea of this study is that of Zhang et al [69], who measured eco-efficiency, eco-technological innovation, and eco-welfare performance in 102 countries, however, they still failed to link all three into the same framework.…”

Dynamic Evolution and Regional Differences in Ecological Welfare Performance: Insights from Guangdong Province, China

“…Moreover, Bian et al [37] compared the ecological welfare performance of 278 Chinese cities. Further, He et al [38] analyzed the year-by-year ecowelfare development performance of cities in Jiangsu Province, while Bian et al [39] measured the same performance for major cities located along the Belt and Road Initiative. Furthermore, based on the level of measurement, scholars have explored the temporal evolution in ecological welfare [40][41][42] and spatial distribution features [43,44].…”