Relationship of Ecological Well-being Performance and Sustainable Economic Development in Liaoning Province

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.01.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Liaoning Province is in a critical period of economic transformation. The rational utilization of ecological resources and the balance of the relationship between the resource environment and economic growth have become the key factors affecting its sustainable economic development. This paper uses data from the Human Development Index and an ecological footprint to construct the ecological well-being performance of Liaoning Province from 2006 to 2016. It then examines the relationship of ecological well-being performance with economic growth, considers the factors influencing the well-being level effect, and analyzes the trends for sustainable economic development from the perspective of ecological well-being. There is a horizontal comparison of the current situation of ecological well-being performance in Liaoning Province and with other coastal provinces in China and clarification of the stage and development gap. The conclusions show that: 1) The trend of ecological well-being performance in Liaoning Province during this period first decreased and then rose, with this movement mainly affected by changes in the ecological footprint; 2) There is a U-shaped relationship between ecological well-being performance and economic growth, and resource consumption contributes less to promote well-being; 3) There are three stages to the sustainable development trend: inferior, medium and advanced. When compared with others coastal provinces, Liaoning Province belongs to the high consumption and low well-being type.

Key words: Liaoning Province, ecological well-being performance, sustainable development, logarithmic mean divisia index

ZHANG Hua,YU Miao,SUN Cuiyang,LIU Jiangang. Relationship of Ecological Well-being Performance and Sustainable Economic Development in Liaoning Province[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(1): 39-47.

Figures/Tables 8

References 33

[1]	Ang B W.2004. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: Which is the preferred method?Energy Policy, 32(9): 1131-1139.
[2]	Ang B W.2005.The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: A practical guide.Energy Policy, 33(7): 867-871.
[3]	Chen Xin.2012. Research on economic sustainable development from the perspective of ecological welfare. Shaanxi Normal University. (in Chinese)
[4]	Daly H E.1974. The world dynamics of economic growth: The economics of the steady state.American Economic Review, 64(2): 15-23.
[5]	Daly H E.2005. Economics in a full world.Scientific American, 293(3): 100-107.
[6]	Deng He, Jiang Shanqiu.2014. Preliminary research on ecological welfare system. Journal of Chongqing University (Social Science Edition), 20(1): 126-130. (in Chinese)
[7]	Dietz T, Rosa E, York R.2009. Environmentally efficient well-being: Rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts. Human Ecology Review, 16(1): 114-123.
[8]	Fan Shengyue, Ma Liangliang.2016. Environmental Kuznets Curve analysis of the footprints family in mainland China.Journal of Natural Resources, 31(9): 1452-1462. (in Chinese)
[9]	Fan Yali.2009. Introduction of ecological welfare and socialization — in the perspective of social policy.Hebei Academic Journal, 29(6): 132-135. (in Chinese)
[10]	Feng Jifang, Yuan Jianhong.2016. Ecological welfare performance — a new analysis tool for sustainable development.Science and Technology Management Research, 36(12): 240-244. (in Chinese)
[11]	Fu Wei, Zhao Junquan, Du Guozhen.2014. The evaluation of resources sustainable utilization — based on empirical analysis of resources welfare index.Journal of Natural Resources, 29(11): 1902-1915. (in Chinese)
[12]	He Lin, Chen Xin.2011. Research on sustainable development of Shaanxi Province based on ecological welfare.Research on Development, (6): 24-28. (in Chinese)
[13]	Huang Baorong, Cui Shuhong, Li Yingming.2016. Ecological footprint evolution characteristics and its influencing factors in China from 2000 to 2010.Environmental Science, 37(2): 420-426. (in Chinese)
[14]	Jorgenson A K.2014. Economic development and the carbon intensity of human well-being.Nature Climate Change, 4(3): 186-189.
[15]	Knight K.2014.Temporal variation of the relationship between environmental demands and well-being: A panel analysis of developed and less-developed countries.Population ＆ Environment, 36(1): 32-47.
[16]	Knight K, Rosa E.2011. The environmental efficiency of well-being: A cross-national analysis.Social Science Research, 40(3): 931-949.
[17]	Li Jing, Liu Lingling.2017. Spatial pattern and spatial differentiation of China’s regional human development.Economic Geography, 37(5): 42-50. (in Chinese)
[18]	Liu Moucheng, Li Wenhua.2009. The calculation of China's equivalence factor under ecological footprint mode based on net primary production.Journal of Natural Resources, 24(9): 1550-1559. (in Chinese)
[19]	Liu Qian, Huang Xisheng.2013. Discussions of ecological welfare system in China.Journal of Hebei University (Philosophy and Social Science), 38(6): 147-151. (in Chinese)
[20]	Long Liangjun, Wang Xia, Guo Bing.2016. Evaluation on sustainable urban development from the perspective of ecological well-being performance — a case study of Shanghai.Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 25(1): 9-15. (in Chinese)
[21]	Lu Lina, Ge Chazhong, Lin Aijun et al.2016. Research on sustainable development of Lichuan City in Hubei Province based on ecological footprint and ecological carrying capacity. China Population, Resources and Environment, (S2): 124-129. (in Chinese)
[22]	Qi Peng, Xu Yudong, Deng Lina.2017. A review of ecological well-being performance study at home and abroad.Journal of Shenyang University of Technology(Social Science Edition), 10(6): 521-526. (in Chinese)
[23]	Rice J.2008. Material consumption and social well-being within the periphery of the world economy: an ecological analysis of maternal mortality.Social Science Research, 37(4): 1292-1309.
[24]	Robert M S.2008. The economics of resources or the resources of economics.Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 1(1):69-82.
[25]	Veenhoven R.2002. Why social policy needs subjective indicators.Social Indicators Research, 58(1): 33-45.
[26]	William E R.1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out.Environment and Urbanization, 4(2): 121-133.
[27]	Yew K.2008. Environmentally responsible happy nation index: Towards an internationally acceptable national success indicator.Social Indicators Research, 85(4): 425-446.
[28]	Zang Mandan, Zhu Dajian, Liu Guoping.2013. Ecological well-being performance: Concept,connotation and empirical of G20.China Population, Resources and Environment, 23(5): 118-124. (in Chinese)
[29]	Zhang Shuai, Shi Qinghua.2017. Conducting the research on sustainable development through the use of human development index and ecological footprint: Based on the paradigm of strong sustainability.Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University(Philosophy and Social Sciences), 25(3): 99-108. (in Chinese)
[30]	Zhang Yingqin, Wei Shuang.2016. A comparative study on interregional of China on the ecological well-being performance and sustainable development.Journal of Xi’an University of Finance and Economics, 29(6): 22-29. (in Chinese)
[31]	Zhu Dajian, Zhang Shuai.2014a. The research on wellbeing level of China and its impact factors from the perspective of ecological footprint.Urban and Environmental Studies, 1(1): 18-33. (in Chinese)
[32]	Zhu Dajian, Zhang Shuai.2014b. Resource on ecological wellbeing performance and its relationship with economic growth. China, Population, Resources and Environment, 24(9): 59-62. (in Chinese)
[33]	Zhu Dajian, Zhang Shuai.2014c. Ecological well-being performance and further research on sustainable development.Journal of Tongji University(Social Science Section), 25(5): 106-115. (in Chinese)

Category	Primary index	Secondary index	Tertiary index
Human development index (HDI)	Economy	Per capita income index	Per capita national income
	Education	Education development index	Average school education years Expected school education years
	Health	Life expectancy index	Life expectancy of the birth population
Ecological footprint (EF)	Biological resource consumption	Cultivated land	Rice, wheat, corn, soybean, oils, beet, vegetable, cotton, tobacco
		Grassland	Meat, milk, eggs
		Woodland	Timber, fruit
		Water area	Aquatic product
	Energy consumption	Energy land	Raw coal, crude oil, natural gas
	Energy consumption	Construction land	Hydroelectric power

Category	Primary index	Secondary index	Tertiary index
Human development index (HDI)	Economy	Per capita income index	Per capita national income
	Education	Education development index	Average school education years Expected school education years
	Health	Life expectancy index	Life expectancy of the birth population
Ecological footprint (EF)	Biological resource consumption	Cultivated land	Rice, wheat, corn, soybean, oils, beet, vegetable, cotton, tobacco
		Grassland	Meat, milk, eggs
		Woodland	Timber, fruit
		Water area	Aquatic product
	Energy consumption	Energy land	Raw coal, crude oil, natural gas
	Energy consumption	Construction land	Hydroelectric power

Trend types	Expression of change rate	Signification	Trend of sustainable development
A	∆HDI > 0; ∆EF < 0	An increase in human well-being level combined with a decrease of ecological resource consumption is a high sustainable development trend.	Advanced sustainable development
B	∆HDI > 0; ∆EF > 0; \(\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}<\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{({{t}_{0}}+\Delta t)}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{\text{(}{{t}_{\text{0}}}+\Delta t\text{)}}}}\)	The human well-being level is rising, and the ecological resource consumption is increasing. However, compared with the initial time (2005), at this time, the ecological well-being performance is growing faster, and this is a medium sustainable development trend.	Medium sustainable development
C	∆HDI < 0; ∆EF< 0; \(\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}<\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{({{t}_{0}}+\Delta t)}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{\text{(}{{t}_{\text{0}}}+\Delta t\text{)}}}}\)	The human well-being level is decreasing, and the ecological resource consumption is also decreasing. However, compared with the initial time (2005), at this time, the ecological well-being performance is growing slower, and this is a medium sustainable development trend.	Medium sustainable development
D	∆HDI > 0; ∆EF > 0; \(\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}>\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{({{t}_{0}}+\Delta t)}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{\text{(}{{t}_{\text{0}}}+\Delta t\text{)}}}}\)	The human well-being level is rising, and the ecological resource consumption is increasing. However, compared with the initial time (2005), at this time, the ecological well-being performance is growing slower, and this is an inferior sustainable development trend.	Inferior sustainable development
E	∆HDI < 0; ∆EF< 0; \(\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}>\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{({{t}_{0}}+\Delta t)}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{\text{(}{{t}_{\text{0}}}+\Delta t\text{)}}}}\)	The human well-being level is decreasing, and the ecological resource consumption is decreasing. However, compared with the initial time (2005), at this time, the ecological well-being performance is growing faster., and this is an inferior sustainable development trend.	Inferior sustainable development
F	∆HDI<0; ∆EF>0	The decrease of human well-being level and the increase of ecological resource consumption show an unsustainable development trend.	Unsustainable development

Trend types	Expression of change rate	Signification	Trend of sustainable development
A	∆HDI > 0; ∆EF < 0	An increase in human well-being level combined with a decrease of ecological resource consumption is a high sustainable development trend.	Advanced sustainable development
B	∆HDI > 0; ∆EF > 0; \(\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}<\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{({{t}_{0}}+\Delta t)}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{\text{(}{{t}_{\text{0}}}+\Delta t\text{)}}}}\)	The human well-being level is rising, and the ecological resource consumption is increasing. However, compared with the initial time (2005), at this time, the ecological well-being performance is growing faster, and this is a medium sustainable development trend.	Medium sustainable development
C	∆HDI < 0; ∆EF< 0; \(\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}<\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{({{t}_{0}}+\Delta t)}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{\text{(}{{t}_{\text{0}}}+\Delta t\text{)}}}}\)	The human well-being level is decreasing, and the ecological resource consumption is also decreasing. However, compared with the initial time (2005), at this time, the ecological well-being performance is growing slower, and this is a medium sustainable development trend.	Medium sustainable development
D	∆HDI > 0; ∆EF > 0; \(\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}>\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{({{t}_{0}}+\Delta t)}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{\text{(}{{t}_{\text{0}}}+\Delta t\text{)}}}}\)	The human well-being level is rising, and the ecological resource consumption is increasing. However, compared with the initial time (2005), at this time, the ecological well-being performance is growing slower, and this is an inferior sustainable development trend.	Inferior sustainable development
E	∆HDI < 0; ∆EF< 0; \(\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{{{t}_{0}}}}}>\frac{\Delta HD{{I}_{({{t}_{0}}+\Delta t)}}}{\Delta E{{F}_{\text{(}{{t}_{\text{0}}}+\Delta t\text{)}}}}\)	The human well-being level is decreasing, and the ecological resource consumption is decreasing. However, compared with the initial time (2005), at this time, the ecological well-being performance is growing faster., and this is an inferior sustainable development trend.	Inferior sustainable development
F	∆HDI<0; ∆EF>0	The decrease of human well-being level and the increase of ecological resource consumption show an unsustainable development trend.	Unsustainable development