Ecological problems and environmental problems have become more and more frequent, constantly sounding the alarm for people, seriously threatening the safety of people's lives and even survival. The construction of ecological culture has become an essential part of modern society and a vital wealth. Therefore, it is urgent to organize the study of the relevant concepts and theories of ecological construction, explain and solve the problems encountered in practice, and guide people to make scientific judgments. The main purpose of this article is to study the structure of ecological civilization from the perspective of Marxist ecological view. By analyzing ecological and environmental issues, following the principles of ecological civilization construction, adopting appropriate means, and relying on an indicator system for evaluation. This article constructs a comprehensive indicator system for the level of ecological environment protection, and analyzes the global spatial autocorrelation and local spatial autocorrelation of the comprehensive indicators. Research shows that urbanization construction and energy efficiency protection are still in a moderate imbalance state. Due to the lag of urbanization construction in the process of ecological environment protection, the two are in a low coordination state. How to combine Marxist ecological views with specific practices in China and effectively promote the process of ecological civilization construction in China still requires in-depth consideration.
WuHSunMZhangW, et al.Can urbanization move ahead with energy conservation and emission reduction? New evidence from China. Energy Environ2022: 0958305X221138822.
2.
HaoXWenSXueY, et al.How to improve environment, resources and economic efficiency in the digital era?Resour Policy2023; 80: 103198.
3.
LiuHZhangJHuangH, et al.Environmental good exports and green total factor productivity: Lessons from China. Sustain Dev2023. 10.1002/sd.2476
4.
MengYLiuLXuZ, et al.Research on the heterogeneity of green biased technology progress in Chinese industries—decomposition Index analysis based on the slacks-based measure integrating (SBM). J Econ Anal2022; 1: 17–34.
5.
NathanielSKhanSAR. The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 272: 122709.
6.
BraunAC. Encroached by pine and eucalyptus? A grounded theory on an environmental conflict between forest industry and smallholder livelihoods in Chile. J Rural Stud2021; 82: 107–120.
7.
QiuYJiaSLiaoJ,et al.Evaluation of urban high quality development level based on entropy weight-TOPSIS two step method. J Econ Anal2022; 1: 50–65.
8.
ParkS. Do bank capital requirements make resource allocation suboptimal?J Econ Anal2022; 1: 35–49.
9.
DockeryDWPope IIICA. The threat to air pollution health studies behind the environmental protection agency's cloak of science transparency. Am J Public Health2020; 110: 286–287.
10.
NapoletanoBMUrquijoPSPaneque-GálvezJ, et al.Has (even Marxist) political ecology really transcended the metabolic rift?Geoforum2018; 92: 92–95.
11.
GuoK. Spatial dynamic evolution of environmental infrastructure governance in China. Econ Anal Lett2022; 1: 23–27.
12.
XiaoHLiuJ. The impact of digital economy development on local fiscal revenue efficiency. Econ Anal Lett2022; 1: 1–7.
13.
DuMRenS. Does the digital economy promote industrial green transformation? Evidence from spatial Durbin model. J Inf Econ2023; 1: 1–17.
14.
LuF. How does financial development environment affect regional innovation capabilities? New perspectives from digital finance and institutional quality. J Inf Econ2023; 1: 31–46.
15.
FayeGTineDDiédhiouC, et al.Cloud computing and machine learning for analyzing spatiotemporal dynamics of mangrove ecosystems in the grand saloum (Senegal and Gambia). Am J Environ Prot2021; 9: 29–42.
16.
BarronMGVivianDNHeintzRA,et al.Long-term ecological impacts from oil spills: comparison of exxon valdez, Hebei spirit, and deepwater horizon. Environ Sci Technol2020; 54(11): 6456–6467.
17.
MichleVPopDSurIM, et al.Non-linear model for estimating the residual pollutant concentration after thermal desorption of crude oil-polluted soil. J Environ Prot Ecol2019; 20: 1120–1131.
18.
LiuYMaCHuangZ. Can the digital economy improve green total factor productivity? An empirical study based on Chinese urban data. Math Biosci Eng2023; 20: 6866–6893.
19.
ZhuJLiZ. Can digital financial inclusion effectively stimulate technological innovation of agricultural enterprises?—A case study on China. Natl Account Rev2021; 3: 398–421.
20.
D TerbuleacSTomaO. The overlooked role of academic environmental organizations in addressing environmental education issues. Appl Environ Educ Commun2019; 18: 91–94.
21.
Le PageJM. Structural rate of unemployment, hysteresis, human capital, and macroeconomic data. Natl Account Rev2022; 4: 135–146.
22.
HuQWangXXuM. Are there heterogeneous impacts of social support on subjective well-being?Natl Account Rev2021; 3: 360–376.
23.
HuangSHuatKTHuatZ, et al. The studies on Chinese traditional culture and corporate environmental responsibility: literature review and its implications. Natl Account Rev2022; 4(1): 1–15.
24.
LiYYangXRanQ, et al.Energy structure, digital economy, and carbon emissions: evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 64606–64629.
25.
IrfanMAhmadMFareedZ, et al.On the indirect environmental outcomes of COVID-19: short-term revival with futuristic long-term implications. Int J Environ Health Res2022; 32: 1271–1281.
26.
IrfanMHaoYIkramM, et al.Assessment of the public acceptance and utilization of renewable energy in Pakistan. Sustain Prod Consum2021; 27: 312–324.
27.
DoganEAltinozBMadalenoM,et al.The impact of renewable energy consumption to economic growth: a replication and extension of. Energy Econ2020; 90: 104866.
28.
DoganEChishtiMZAlavijehNK,et al.The roles of technology and Kyoto Protocol in energy transition towards COP26 targets: evidence from the novel GMM-PVAR approach for G-7 countries. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 181: 121756.
29.
DoganESekerFBulbulS. Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: a panel study of OECD countries. Curr Issues Tour2017; 20: 1701–1719.
30.
PradaMPopescuDEBungauC, et al.Parametric studies on European 20-20-20 energy policy targets in university environments. J Environ Prot Ecol2017; 18: 1146–1157.
31.
MarcusMIVladMMitiuMA, et al.Recovery of galvanic sludge by physicochemical mechanisms. J Environ Prot Ecol2017; 18: 1117–1126.
32.
WuHZhongRWangZ, et al.How Does Industrial Intellectualization Affect Energy Intensity? Evidence from China. Energy J2024; 45.
33.
DoganESekerF. The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 60: 1074–1085.
34.
AnwarASiddiqueMDoganE,et al.The moderating role of renewable and non-renewable energy in environment-income nexus for ASEAN countries: evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Renew Energy2021; 164: 956–967.
35.
LiuYChenLLvL, et al. The impact of population aging on economic growth: a case study on China. AIMS Math2023; 8(5): 10468–10485.
36.
GiovanardiFFrancéJMozetičP,et al.Development of ecological classification criteria for the Biological Quality Element phytoplankton for Adriatic and Tyrrhenian coastal waters by means of chlorophyll a (2000/60/EC WFD). Ecol Indic2018; 93: 316–332.
37.
PetrovP. Chemical and physicochemical parameters of recultivated embankments of Maritsa - Iztok mine in relation to development of soil formation process. J Environ Prot Ecol2019; 20: 912–923.
38.
MitevaKAleksovskiSBogoeva-GacevaG, et al.Characterisation of liquid fuel produced by thermal pyrolysis of waste polyolefin mixture.J Environ Prot Ecol2019; 20: 1223–1233.
39.
DaloESadikajRArapiD,et al.Evaluation of chromium and nickel contents in stalks of Phragmites australis as an indicator of water pollution of Ohrid Lake by heavy metals.J Environ Prot Ecol2019; 20: 28–36.
40.
TsiarasSAndreopoulouZSpanosI. Sustainability indicators in less favoured areas as a tool for forest policy analysis.J Environ Prot Ecol2018; 19: 1926–1934.
41.
Britton-PurdyJS. The shape of public-lands law and Trump's national monument proclamations.Ecol Law Q2018; 33.
42.
PetkouD. Developing a typology of teacher use of schoolyards as an environmental education tool: the case of kindergartens.J Environ Prot Ecol2018; 19: 1823–1833.
43.
AshokEGDhananjayaBNKadalliGG, et al.Augmenting production and profitability of finger millet + pigeonpea intercropping system.Environ Ecol2010; 28: 28–33.
44.
ManjunathaMDevakumarANivedithaM. Carbon sequestration in litter and soils of coffee-based agroforestry systems in central Western Ghats of Kodagu District of Karnataka.Environ Ecol2012; 30: 985–987.
45.
MenguyS. Fundamental character of the risk premium to influence the sustainability of the public debt. J Econ Anal2023; 2: 115–129.
46.
WillsteedEABirchenoughSNGillAB,et al.Structuring cumulative effects assessments to support regional and local marine management and planning obligations. Mar Policy2018; 98: 23–32.
47.
GanjiSSvenssonFGUneliusCR. Asymmetric synthesis of oxygenated monoterpenoids of importance for bark beetle ecology. J Nat Prod2020; 83: 3332–3337.
48.
BennertHWBärAFreigangJ, et al.Taxonomic uncertainty and a conundrum: reassessing the tetraploid taxa of the Dryopteris affinis complex (Dryopteridaceae). Nova Hedwigia2022; 48: 487–518.
KhanSARTabishMZhangY. Embracement of industry 4.0 and sustainable supply chain practices under the shadow of practice-based view theory: ensuring environmental sustainability in corporate sector. J Cleaner Prod2023; 398: 136609.
