Premium
Environmental Performance Analysis of Eco‐Industrial Parks in China: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach
Author(s) -
Liu Wei,
Tian Jinping,
Chen Lujun,
Lu Wanying,
Gao Yang
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of industrial ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.377
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1530-9290
pISSN - 1088-1980
DOI - 10.1111/jiec.12233
Subject(s) - data envelopment analysis , eco efficiency , index (typography) , environmental economics , malmquist index , china , sustainable development , business , environmental science , industrial ecology , environmental resource management , sustainability , economics , mathematics , computer science , statistics , geography , productivity , total factor productivity , economic growth , ecology , biology , archaeology , world wide web
Summary In pursuit of more sustainable development of industry, China has been actively developing eco‐industrial parks (EIPs) for more than a decade. However, the environmental value of these EIPs remains largely unverified. This study aimed to evaluate the environmental performance of national EIPs in China using data envelopment analysis. Eco‐efficiency and environmental performance indices were used to represent the static and dynamic environmental performance of EIPs, respectively. An environmental performance index was formed by combining measures of eco‐efficiency in a dynamic setting with the sequential Malmquist index approach. We obtained three main empirical findings. First, 34 national EIPs exhibited a cumulative environmental performance improvement of 89.4% from 2007 to 2010, which is primarily the result of eco‐efficiency change rather than environmental technical change. Second, compared with the trial EIPs, the demonstration EIPs had a higher average eco‐efficiency (0.611 vs. 0.446 in 2010) and experienced greater average environmental performance improvement (129% vs. 60%). Third, the EIPs retrofitted from high‐tech industrial development zones exhibited much higher average eco‐efficiency (0.798 vs. 0.440 in 2010) than those retrofitted from economic and technical development zones. The key measures supporting the performance improvement and policy implications for the development of EIPs are also discussed.