可持续发展目标达成度对中国生态文明建设公众满意度的影响

刘雅莉; 单丽雯; 杜剑卿; 王艳芬

doi:10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2023.02.13

可持续发展目标达成度对中国生态文明建设公众满意度的影响

doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2023.02.13

刘雅莉^1,,
单丽雯²,
杜剑卿^{3, 4},
王艳芬^{3, 4}

1.
北京林业大学草业与草原学院，北京　100083
2.
中国科学院大学中丹学院，北京　101408
3.
中国科学院大学资源与环境学院，北京　101408
4.
中国科学院大学，北京燕山地球关键带国家野外科学观测研究站，北京　101408

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金项目(No.42001267)；中国博士后科学基金资助项目(No.2021T140655)

详细信息

作者简介:
刘雅莉（1987-），女，四川成都人，讲师，博士，主要从事生态系统管理与可持续发展研究，liuyali@bjfu.edu.cn

中图分类号: X22
计量
- 文章访问数: 120
- HTML全文浏览量: 25
- PDF下载量: 33
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-12-02
- 修回日期: 2023-02-19

Influence of Sustainable Development Progress on Public Satisfaction of Ecological Civilization Construction in China

LIU Yali^1
,,
SHAN Liwen²,
DU Jianqing^{3, 4},
WANG Yanfen^{3, 4}

1.
School of Grassland Science, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2.
Sino-Danish College, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China
3.
College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China
4.
Beijing Yanshan Earth Critical Zone National Research Station, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China

Funds: National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.42001267); China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No.2021T140655)

摘要

摘要: 自联合国可持续发展目标提出以来，学者们聚焦其达成度开展了大量的评估工作，以期揭示中国可持续发展过程中面临的问题和挑战，进而指导政府决策. 已有评估指标的选择是“自上而下”的，普遍参照联合国建议. 然而，在实际应用中，可持续发展评估结果是否与“自下而上”衡量政府绩效的另外一个重要标准“生态文明建设公众满意度”相匹配尚不明确，增加了政府决策的不确定性. 因此，该研究以中国31个省级行政单位为样本(不包括港澳台地区数据)，建立了可持续发展达成度梯度，利用滑动窗口结合线性回归等方法，分析了可持续发展目标达成度的两个维度(平均达成度和目标间均衡度)与生态文明建设公众满意度间的变化关系及其驱动机制. 结果表明：①可持续发展评估的两个维度中，目标平均达成度与公众满意度之间无显著关系，目标间均衡度则与公众满意度呈正相关，特别是在较高可持续发展水平下(R²=0.36，P<0.01). ②环境和经济指标是影响生态文明建设公众满意度的主要因素，环境质量的影响在可持续发展水平较高的阶段更加强烈. ③经济发展和环境保护目标间的权衡关系制约了可持续发展状况相对较好省份的生态文明建设，也是决定可持续目标间均衡度与生态文明建设公众满意度间正相关关系的重要因素. 研究显示，可持续发展目标间均衡度是影响公众满意度的重要因素，传统的基于目标平均达成度的可持续发展评估难以有效指导生态文明建设，部分原因在于该方法忽略了不同目标达成度间的差异. 随着可持续发展水平的提升，经济和环境类目标达成度间的差异对公众满意度的影响逐渐增强，说明未来我国在生态文明政策制定中应加强对可持续发展薄弱环节的重视.
- 可持续发展达成度 /
- 公众满意度 /
- 生态文明建设 /
- 发展均衡度
Abstract: Since the United Nations proposed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, intensive studies have been carried out to assess China's progress towards SDGs, aiming at a comprehensive understanding of the current challenges to guide policymaking for future development. Generally, the SDGs indicator system follows the recommendations of the United Nations. However, whether these objective assessment results match public satisfaction of ecological civilization construction (another important criterion for measuring government performance towards SDGs) remains unexplored, which could largely interfere with policymaking processes. This study investigates the changing relationship between public satisfaction with ecological civilization construction and the average performance of all SDGs or SDGs evenness and its underlying mechanism by establishing a sustainable development gradient with 31 provinces in China (excluding the data of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan). By doing so, we aim to guide policymaking at different development stages. Our results shows that: (1) There is no significant relationship between the average performance of all SDGs and public satisfaction, while SDGs evenness is positively correlated with public satisfaction, especially at a high level of average performance (R²=0.36, P<0.01). (2) Environmental and economic indicators are the main factors affecting the public satisfaction, while the impact of environmental quality is greater in provinces with higher average performance towards SDGs. (3) The trade-off between economic development and environmental protection goals restricts the construction of ecological civilization in provinces with high average performance towards SDGs, and is also an important factor shaping the positive correlation between the SDGs evenness and public satisfaction. Overall, this study highlights that SDGs evenness, rather than the commonly used average performance of all SDGs, is an important factor controlling public satisfaction. Thus, the traditional assessment using the latter is not likely to effectively guide the ecological civilization construction in China. This may be due to the neglect of progress differences among SDGs when looking at the average performance only. Moreover, the effect of progress differences in SDGs related to economic development and environmental protection on public satisfaction gradually increases along the sustainable development gradient, suggesting that China should pay more attention to the deficiencies of SDGs to stimulate ecological civilization construction in the future.
- sustainable development progress /
- public satisfaction /
- ecological civilization construction /
- SDGs evenness

HTML全文

图 1 扇形雷达图概略图

注：θ为扇形的圆心角，$ {r}_{j} $为扇形的半径.

Figure 1. Outline of the radar chart method

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 目标平均达成度和目标间均衡度与公众满意度间的关系

Figure 2. The relationship between SDGs mean index score or evenness and public satisfaction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 不同可持续发展阶段目标平均达成度和目标间均衡度与公众满意度间的关系

Figure 3. The relationship between SDGs mean index score or evenness and public satisfaction in different sustainable development stages

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 目标平均达成度、目标间均衡度与公众满意度间的偏相关关系沿可持续发展梯度上的变化趋势

Figure 4. The changing partial correlation between SDGs mean index score or evenness and public satisfaction along MIS gradient

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 目标平均达成度和目标间均衡度在不同滑动窗口大小的敏感度分析

Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis for changing window size of SDGs mean index score and SDGs evenness score

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 中国31个省份的可持续发展状况分类

Table 1. Classification of the sustainable development status of 31 provinces in China

可持续发展状况分类	省份
较好(16个)	北京市、上海市、重庆市、福建省、四川省、浙江省、吉林省、天津市、湖北省、云南省、广东省、湖南省、广西壮族自治区、贵州省、江西省、江苏省
较差(15个)	辽宁省、海南省、黑龙江省、陕西省、河南省、山东省、安徽省、西藏自治区、甘肃省、河北省、青海省、新疆维吾尔自治区、内蒙古自治区、宁夏回族自治区、山西省

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 目标平均达成度、目标间均衡度与公众满意度间的滑动偏相关系数沿可持续发展梯度上变化趋势的拟合结果比较

Table 2. Model comparisons for the changing trend of partial correlation coefficient between SDGs mean index score or evenness and public satisfaction along mean index score gradient

指标	拟合模型	三次项系数	二次项系数	一次项系数	调整后R²	P	AIC
目标平均达成度	一次线性模型	—	—	−0.007(0.84)	0	0.84	−33.84
	二次线性模型	—	0.002(0.86)	−0.23(0.85)	0	0.97	−30.97
	三次线性模型	−0.005(0.27)	0.76(0.27)	−41.71(0.27)	0	0.72	−29.23
目标间均衡度	一次线性模型	—	—	0.06(0.04)	0.13	0.04	−40.16
	二次线性模型	—	0.03(<0.001)	−3.69(<0.001)	0.59	<0.001	−56.14
	三次线性模型	−0.000 7(0.78)	0.15(0.72)	−10.09(0.66)	0.57	<0.001	−53.01
注：各次项系数后面括号中的数字代表系数的P值.

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 主要环境、经济、社会因素与公众满意度的相关性分析

Table 3. Pearson correlation analysis between environmental, economic, social factors and public satisfaction

分组	统计量	环境质量指数	建成区绿化覆盖率	人均公园绿地面积	单位GDP的 CO₂排放量	人均GDP	城市化程度	工业化程度	工业污染治理投资占总 GDP比例	生态建设与保护投资占总GDP比例	人均教育投入资金
31个省份	r	0.73^**	−0.228	−0.057	−0.125	−0.240	−0.482^**	0.107	0.022	0.242	0.055
	P	<0.001	0.218	0.762	0.509	0.194	0.006	0.568	0.908	0.189	0.768
	N	31	31	31	30	31	31	31	31	31	31
可持续发展状况较好的省份	r	0.783^**	−0.22	0.022	0.325	−0.577^*	−0.736^**	0.616^*	−0.192	0.08	−0.713^**
	P	<0.001	0.413	0.936	0.220	0.019	0.001	0.011	0.476	0.768	0.002
	N	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16
可持续发展状况较差的省份	r	0.683^**	−0.356	−0.109	−0.087	0.038	−0.440	−0.453^*	0.174	0.444^*	0.730^**
	P	0.005	0.193	0.700	0.768	0.894	0.100	0.090	0.536	0.097	0.002
	N	15	15	15	14	15	15	15	15	15	15
注：代表P<0.1，显著相关；* 代表P<0.01，极显著相关.

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 主要环境、经济、社会因素对公众满意度影响的多元回归分析

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis of environmental, economic and social factors influencing public satisfaction

影响因素 (模型参数)	31个省份 (R²=0.60，F=11.96，P<0.001)			可持续发展状况较好的省份 (R²=0.69，F=17.75，P<0.001)			可持续发展状况较差的省份 (R²=0.66，F=7.31，P=0.007)
影响因素 (模型参数)	β	t	P	β	t	P	β	t	P
环境质量指数	0.678	5.033	<0.001	0.642	4.135	0.001	0.74	4.469	0.002
人均GDP	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.428	2.279	0.049
城市化程度	−0.384	−2.145	0.042	—	—	—	−0.466	−2.489	0.034
工业化程度	0.421	2.713	0.012	0.372	2.395	0.032	—	—	—
工业污染治理投资占总GDP比例	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.461	2.801	0.021
人均教育投入资金	0.574	2.88	0.008	—	—	—	—	—	—
注：表格仅列出了最优模型筛选后的主要影响因素. β代表标准化回归系数.

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 主要影响因素与目标平均达成度和目标间均衡度的相关性分析

Table 5. Pearson correlation analysis between key impact factors and SDGs mean index score (MIS) or evenness score (ES)

分组	指标	统计量	环境质量指数	人均GDP	城市化程度	工业化程度
可持续发展状况较好的省份	目标平均达成度	r	−0.287	0.609^*	0.584^*	−0.658^**
		P	0.280	0.012	0.018	0.006
		N	16	16	16	16
	目标间均衡度	r	0.67^**	−0.527^*	−0.629^**	0.418
		P	0.004	0.036	0.009	0.108
		N	16	16	16	16
可持续发展状况较差的省份	目标平均达成度	r	0.295	0.3	0.173	−0.162
		P	0.286	0.278	0.537	0.563
		N	15	15	15	15
	目标间均衡度	r	−0.046	−0.074	−0.048	0.249
		P	0.871	0.793	0.866	0.370
		N	15	15	15	15
注：代表P<0.1，显著相关；*代表P<0.01，极显著相关.

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(43)

[1]	尤建新,邵鲁宁,杨淼.公众满意理念及公众满意度评价[J].上海管理科学,2004,26(2):59-61. YOU J X,SHAO L N,YANG M.The public satisfaction philosophy and the evaluation of public satisfaction[J].Shanghai Management Science,2004,26(2):59-61.
[2]	李军.以国民幸福指数为导向的中国地方政府绩效评价体系研究[D].济南:山东大学,2013.
[3]	曾莉.基于公众满意度导向的政府绩效评估[J].学术论坛,2006,29(6):48-51. ZENG L.Government performance evaluation based on public satisfaction orientation[J].Academic Forum,2006,29(6):48-51.
[4]	冯菲,钟杨.中国城市公共服务公众满意度的影响因素探析:基于10个城市公众满意度的调查[J].上海行政学院学报,2016,17(2):58-75. FENG F,ZHONG Y.An empirical study of China's public satisfaction with government services:based on surveys in 10 cities[J].The Journal of Shanghai Administration Institute,2016,17(2):58-75.
[5]	鲁元平,王韬.主观幸福感影响因素研究评述[J].经济学动态,2010(5):125-130. LU Y P,WANG T.A review of research on influencing factors of subjective well-being[J].Economic Perspectives,2010(5):125-130.
[6]	HAGERTY M R,VEENHOVEN R.Wealth and happiness revisited-growing national income Does go with greater happiness[J].Social Indicators Research,2003,64(1):1-27. doi: 10.1023/A:1024790530822
[7]	STEVENSON B,WOLFERS J.Economic growth and subjective well-being:reassessing the easterlin paradox[J].Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,2008,2008:1-87. doi: 10.1353/eca.0.0001
[8]	RAM R.Government spending and happiness of the population:additional evidence from large cross-country samples[J].Public Choice,2009,138(3):483-490.
[9]	DI-TELLA R,MACCULLOCH R J,OSWALD A J.Preferences over inflation and unemployment:evidence from surveys of happiness[J].American Economic Review,2001,91(1):335-341. doi: 10.1257/aer.91.1.335
[10]	TRAN N L T,WASSMER R W,LASCHER E L.The health insurance and life satisfaction connection[J].Journal of Happiness Studies,2017,18(2):409-426. doi: 10.1007/s10902-016-9729-x
[11]	KOTAKORPI K,LAAMANEN J P.Welfare state and life satisfaction:evidence from public health care[J].Economica,2008.doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0335.2008.00769.x.
[12]	WELSCH H.Environment and happiness:valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data[J].Ecological Economics,2006,58(4):801-813. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.006
[13]	BONASIA M,de SIMONE E,D'UVA M,et al.Environmental protection and happiness:a long-run relationship in Europe[J].Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2022,93:106704. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106704
[14]	CHENG Y Y,ZHANG J G,WEI W,et al.Effects of urban parks on residents' expressed happiness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic[J].Landscape and Urban Planning,2021,212:104118. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104118
[15]	ZHU X,GAO M,ZHANG R,et al.Quantifying emotional differences in urban green spaces extracted from photos on social networking sites:a study of 34 parks in three cities in northern China[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,2021,62:127133.
[16]	KNIGHT J,GUNATILAKA R.Income inequality and happiness:which inequalities matter in China?[J].China Economic Review,2022,72:101765. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2022.101765
[17]	罗楚亮.城乡分割、就业状况与主观幸福感差异[J].经济学(季刊),2006,5(2):817-840. LUO C L.Urban-rural divide,employment,and subjective well-being[J].China Economic Quarterly,2006,5(2):817-840.
[18]	吕洁华,刘飞,夏彩云,等.城乡居民生活幸福感指数的对比分析[J].统计与决策,2015(5):92-95. LÜ H,LIU F,XIA C Y,et al.Comparative analysis of life happiness index of urban and rural residents[J].Statistics & Decision,2015(5):92-95.
[19]	United Nations.Transforming our world:the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.division for sustainable development goals[R].New York:United Nations,2015:1-35.
[20]	XU Z C,CHAU S N,CHEN X Z,et al.Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time[J].Nature,2020,577(7788):74-78. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1846-3
[21]	LIU Y L,DU J Q,WANG Y F,et al.Evenness is important in assessing progress towards sustainable development goals[J].National Science Review,2021,8(8):nwaa238. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaa238
[22]	国家统计局.2016年生态文明建设年度评价结果公报[EB/OL].北京:国家统计局,(2017-12-26)[2022-12-10].http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201712/t20171226_1566827.html.
[23]	李庆.基于空间相关性的公众生态环境满意度研究[J].生态经济,2019,35(12):147-152. LI Q.Satisfaction of public ecological environment based on spatial correlation[J].Ecological Economy,2019,35(12):147-152.
[24]	SHAN Y L,HUANG Q,GUAN D B,et al.China CO₂ emission accounts 2016-2017[J].Scientific Data,2020,7:54. doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-0393-y
[25]	中华人民共和国国家统计局.中国第三产业统计年鉴 2017年[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2017.
[26]	WU X T,FU B J,WANG S,et al.Decoupling of SDGs followed by re-coupling as sustainable development progresses[J].Nature Sustainability,2022,5(5):452-459. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-00868-x
[27]	WANG Y F,DU J Q,PANG Z,et al.Unimodal productivity-biodiversity relationship along the gradient of multidimensional resources across Chinese grasslands[J].National Science Review,2022,9(12):nwac165. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwac165
[28]	CAI Z Y,LIU Q,CAO S X.Real estate supports rapid development of China's urbanization[J].Land Use Policy,2020,95:104582. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104582
[29]	SUN Y,CUI Y.Evaluating the coordinated development of economic,social and environmental benefits of urban public transportation infrastructure:case study of four Chinese autonomous municipalities[J].Transport Policy,2018,66:116-126. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.02.006
[30]	FAN S M,YAN J J,SHA J H.Innovation and economic growth in the mining industry:evidence from China's listed companies[J].Resources Policy,2017,54:25-42. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.08.007
[31]	虞慧怡,王昊,张林波,等.基于“两山”关系状态识别的长江经济带生态文明实现路径研究[J].环境科学研究,2022,35(10):2348-2356. YU H Y,WANG H,ZHANG L B,et al.Realization paths of eco-civilization in Yangtze River Economic Belt based on‘two mountains’ relationship status identification[J].Research of Environmental Sciences,2022,35(10):2348-2356.
[32]	周易,包存宽,黄文芳.苏州市近十年生态文明建设成效评估对比分析:从公民视角出发[J].生态经济,2020,36(7):210-215. ZHOU Y,BAO C K,HUANG W F.Comparative analysis of the evaluation of ecological civilization construction in Suzhou City around the recent ten years from the perspective of citizens[J].Ecological Economy,2020,36(7):210-215.
[33]	徐国强,李瑭.江苏省生态文明建设满意度调查分析[J].统计科学与实践,2016(9):29-31. XU G Q,LI T.Investigation and analysis on satisfaction of ecological civilization construction in Jiangsu Province[J].Statistical Theory and Practice,2016(9):29-31.
[34]	王昊,张林波,宝明涛,等.2015—2017年“2+26”城市生态文明发展水平评估及动态变化分析[J].环境科学研究,2021,34(3):661-670. WANG H,ZHANG L B,BAO M T,et al.Evaluation and analysis of dynamic changes in ecological civilization development level of ‘2+26’ cities in China from 2015 to 2017[J].Research of Environmental Sciences,2021,34(3):661-670.
[35]	LI G E,CHANG L Y,LIU X J,et al.Monitoring the spatiotemporal dynamics of poor counties in China:implications for global sustainable development goals[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2019,227:392-404. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.135
[36]	PABLOS-MENDEZ A,CAVANAUGH K,LY C.The new era of health goals:universal health coverage as a pathway to the sustainable development goals[J].Health Systems and Reform,2016,2(1):15-17. doi: 10.1080/23288604.2015.1120377
[37]	FILIPPINI R,MAZZOCCHI C,CORSI S.The contribution of Urban Food Policies toward food security in developing and developed countries:a network analysis approach[J].Sustainable Cities and Society,2019,47:101506. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101506
[38]	LI Y,GUAN D B,TAO S,et al.A review of air pollution impact on subjective well-being:survey versus visual psychophysics[J].Journal of Cleaner Production,2018,184:959-968. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.296
[39]	DU G D,SHIN K J,MANAGI S.Variability in impact of air pollution on subjective well-being[J].Atmospheric Environment,2018,183:175-208. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.018
[40]	LI Y,GUAN D B,YU Y N,et al.A psychophysical measurement on subjective well-being and air pollution[J].Nature Communications,2019,10(1):1-8. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07882-8
[41]	WANG S J,MA H T,ZHAO Y B.Exploring the relationship between urbanization and the eco-environment:a case study of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region[J].Ecological Indicators,2014,45:171-183. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.006
[42]	毛敏娟,杨续超.霾与城市化发展的关系[J].环境科学研究,2015,28(12):1823-1832. MAO M J,YANG X C.The relationship between haze weather and urbanization[J].Research of Environmental Sciences,2015,28(12):1823-1832.
[43]	黄永明,何凌云.城市化、环境污染与居民主观幸福感:来自中国的经验证据[J].中国软科学,2013(12):82-93. HUANG Y M,HE L Y.Urbanization,environmental pollution and subjective well-being:an empirical study on China[J].China Soft Science,2013(12):82-93.