Spatial Econometric Analyses of the Interactions Between DEA-based Multidimensional Sustainable Development Efficiency: Evidence From Provincial Panel Data in China

Abstract

With the 2030 Agenda reaching its halfway mark, there is an increasing scholarly focus on the effective implementation of the SDGs in a manner that is comprehensive, synchronised, and equitable. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has been widely acknowledged as a practical approach for evaluating the efficacy of development initiatives, addressing the challenges posed by conventional single-performance studies that hinder the assessment of multi-objective governance by quantifying the relative capacity to attain goals within resource limitations. This study analyses multidimensional development efficiency across areas and time. It uses a panel dataset from 2002 to 2019 to study efficiency trends and spatiotemporal interconnections. The findings indicate that there are notable temporal and regional variations in livelihood, education, and technology, as well as ecological and economic efficiencies. The eastern region has more significant economic development, resulting in higher overall efficiency. Conversely, the central and western areas, which are comparatively underdeveloped, are making progress in narrowing the gap with the eastern region. Technology, population movement, and other factors have caused geographical aggregation. The Global Malmquist Index Decomposition illustrates the inherent imbalance in multidimensional development efficiency and examines what drives underlying efficiency heterogeneity regarding technology and efficiency improvements. Furthermore, the development of a dynamic spatial Durbin model examines the presence of spatial spillover effects on multidimensional development efficiency across various directions and intensities in both the short and long run. This indicates that interregional interactions are bidirectional, considering resource limitations. This research provides novel insights into comprehending the complex and interconnected characteristics of sustainable development, hence contributing valuable policy implications for goal-based development governance.

Keywords

sustainable development goals (SDGs)data envelopment analysis (DEA)efficiency analysis goal-based governance dynamic spatial Durbin model (SDM)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandari

Moallemi

E. A.

Lester

R. E.

Downie

Bryan

B. A.

(2022). Prioritising Sustainable Development Goals, characterising interactions, and identifying solutions for local sustainability. Environmental Science & Policy, 127, 325–336.

Belotti

Hughes

Mortari

A. P.

(2017). Spatial panel-data models using Stata. The Stata Journal, 17(1), 139–180.

Bogers

Biermann

Kalfagianni

Kim

R. E.

(2022). Sustainable Development Goals fail to advance policy integration: A large-n text analysis of 159 international organisations. Environmental Science & Policy, 138, 134–145.

Cairns

Krzywoszynska

(2016). Anatomy of a buzzword: The emergence of ‘the water-energy-food nexus’ in UK natural resource debates. Environmental Science & Policy, 64, 164–170.

Charnes

Cooper

W. W.

Rhodes

(1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.

Chen

(2014). Advanced econometrics and applications in Stata (2nd ed., p. 597). Higher Education Press.

Chimhowu

A. O.

Hulme

Munro

L. T.

(2019). The ‘New’ national development planning and global development goals: Processes and partnerships. World Development, 120, 76–89.

Chung

Färe

Grosskopf

(1997). Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(3), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1997.0146

Clark

W. C.

Dickson

N. M.

(2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100(14), 8059–8061.

10.

Costanza

Daly

(1990). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology, 6, 37–46.

11.

De Laurentiis

Hunt

D. V. L.

Rogers

C. D. F

. (2016). Overcoming food security challenges within an energy/water/food nexus (EWFN) approach. Sustainability, 8(1), 95.

12.

Deng

Zhang

Guo

(2011). Research on ecological efficiency based on three-stage DEA model. China Soft Science, 1, 92–99.

13.

Emrouznejad

Amin

G. R.

(2009). DEA models for ratio data: Convexity consideration. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33(1), 486–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2007.11.018

14.

Färe

Grosskopf

Lindgren

Roos

(1992). Productivity changes in Swedish pharmacies 1980–1989: A non-parametric Malmquist approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3(1), 85–101.

15.

Farrell

M. J.

(1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A. General, 120(3), 253–290. https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100.

16.

Chen

Leng

(2013). Urban agglomerations eco-efficiency analysis based on super-efficiency DEA model: Case study of Chang-Zhu-Tan “3 + 5” urban agglomeration. China Population, Resources and Environment, 23(4), 169–175.

17.

Guan

(2005). The performance of Chinese regional innovation system evaluation based on data envelope analysis. Studies in Science of Science, 2, 265–272. https://doi.org/10.16192/j.cnki.1003-2053.2005.02.022

18.

Gui

(2014). Innovation efficiency and its influencing factors of China’s high-tech industry based on the spatial econometric model. Economic Geography, 34(06), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2014.06.007

19.

Guo

Peng

Ding

(2016). Construction of the indexes of DEA used in comprehensive evaluation of sustainable development. China population. Resources and Environment, 26(3), 9–17.

20.

Guo

Lei

Zhang

Peng

(2012). Studies on efficiency of national innovation system: Based on the DEA-Tobit two-step method. Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 27(2), 142–150+160. https://doi.org/10.13613/j.cnki.qhdz.002072

21.

Hatfield-Dodds

Schandl

Adams

P. D.

Baynes

T. M.

Brinsmead

T. S.

Bryan

B. A.

Chiew

F. H.

Graham

P. W.

Grundy

Harwood

McCallum

McCrea

McKellar

L. E.

Newth

Nolan

Prosser

Wonhas

(2015). Australia is ‘free to choose’ economic growth and falling environmental pressures. Nature, 527(7576), 49–53.

22.

Hollingsworth

Smith

(2003). Use of ratios in data envelopment analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 10(11), 733–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485032000133381.

23.

Horvath

S. M.

Muhr

M. M.

Kirchner

Toth

Germann

Hundscheid

Vacik

Scherz

Kreiner

Fehr

Borgwardt

Gühnemann

Becsi

Schneeberger

Gratzer

(2022). Handling a complex agenda: A review and assessment of methods to analyse SDG entity interactions. Environmental Science & Policy, 131, 160–176.

24.

(2017). China’s great contribution to the world’s human development: An assessment of China’s achievement of MDG goals (1990-2015) (Zhong Guo Dui Shi Jie Ren Lei Fa Zhan De Ju Da Gong Xian – Dui Zhong Guo Shi Xian MDG Mu Biao De Ping Gu (1999-2015 Nian)). (eds.) State of the Nation Report, 18, 477–492.

25.

Zheng

Gao

Zhang

(2008). Provincial technology efficiency ranking with environmental factors (1999-2005). China Economic Quarterly, 2008(3), 933–960.

26.

Issever Grochová

Litzman

. (2021). The efficiency in meeting measurable sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(8), 709–719.

27.

Ishimatsu

Doufene

Alawad

De Weck

(2017). Desalination network model driven decision support system: A case study of Saudi Arabia. Desalination, 423, 65–78.

28.

Lafortune

Fuller

Moreno

Schmidt-Traub

Kroll

(2018). SDG index and dashboards detailed methodological paper. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 9, 1–56.

29.

Zhou

(2006). Can technological progress improve energy efficiency? An empirical test based on China’s industrial sector (Ji Shu Jin Bu Neng Ti Gao Neng Yuan Xiao Lv Ma? –Ji Yu Zhong Guo Gong Ye Bu Men De Shi Zheng Jian Yan). Journal of Management World, 10, 82–89. https://doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2006.10.010

30.

(2024). How do capacity-based national development planning play a role in achieving integrated development goals?—A quantitative comparative study in the context of China’s Five-Year Plan. Public Organization Review, 24(2), 593–612.

31.

Lin

Long

(2005). A spatial analysis of regional economic convergence in China: 1978–2002. China Economic Quarterly, S1, 67–82.

32.

Liu

Hull

Godfray

H. C. J.

Tilman

Gleick

Hoff

Pahl-Wostl

Chung

M. G.

Sun

(2018). Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 1(9), 466–476.

33.

Liu

(2013). An evaluation research on Beijing’s sustainable development potential via PCA and DEA. Journal of Applied Statistics and Management, 32(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.13860/j.cnki.sltj.2013.02.011

34.

Liu

(2015). Research on regional difference about carbon emission efficiency in China: Based on three-stage DEA model and super efficiency DEA model. Journal of Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, 37(2), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.13781/j.cnki.1007-9556.2015.02.003

35.

Lusseau

Mancini

(2019). Income-based variation in Sustainable Development Goal interaction networks. Nature Sustainability, 2(3), 242–247.

36.

Huang

Yao

(2011). Total-factor Energy Efficiency analysis of three major economic regions in China: Based on Super-DEA and Malmquist. China Population, Resources and Environment, 21(11), 38–43.

37.

Mauerhofer

(2008). 3-D Sustainability: An approach for priority setting in situation of conflicting interests towards a Sustainable Development. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 496–506.

38.

Meuleman

Niestroy

(2015). Common but differentiated governance: A metagovernance approach to make the SDGs work. Sustainability, 7(9), 12295–12321.

39.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs People’s Republic of China, United Nations System in China. (2015). Report on China’s implementation of the millennium development goals (2000-2015). United Nations Development Programme.

40.

National Research Council, Global Affairs, Policy Division, & Board on Sustainable Development. (1999). Our common journey: A transition toward sustainability. National Academies Press.

41.

Nilsson

Griggs

Visbeck

(2016). Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534(7607), 320–322.

42.

Niu

Liu

Chang

(2015). Sustainable development evaluation of counties in Hebei based on DEA. China Population, Resources and Environment, 25(S2), 288–291.

43.

Niu

Sun

(2007). Advancement in Chinese sustainable development researches in recent ten years. China Population, Resources and Environment, 3, 122–128.

44.

Olsson

(2013). Water, energy and food interactions: Challenges and opportunities. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 7, 787–793.

45.

Pahl-Wostl

(2019). Governance of the water-energy-food security nexus: A multi-level coordination challenge. Environmental Science & Policy, 92, 356–367.

46.

Pradhan

Costa

Rybski

Lucht

Kropp

J. P.

(2017). A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future, 5(11), 1169–1179.

47.

Qian

Liu

(2013). Regional differences in China’s green economic efficiency and their determinants. China Population, Resources and Environment, 23(7), 104–109.

48.

Qiu

Zhu

(2007). Eco-efficiency indicators for China and their applications. Scientific Management Research, 1, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.19445/j.cnki.15-1103/g3.2007.01.006

49.

Ray

S. C.

(2008). The directional distance function and measurement of super-efficiency: An application to airlines data. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(6), 788–797. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602392

50.

Salah

A. H.

Hassan

G. E.

Fath

Elhelw

ElSherbiny

(2017). Analytical investigation of different operational scenarios of a novel greenhouse combined with solar stills. Applied Thermal Engineering, 122, 297–310.

51.

Sha

(2010). Analysis of the issue of people’s livelihood efficiency. Journal of Socialist Theory Guide, 11, 9–12.

52.

Scherer

Behrens

de Koning

Heijungs

Sprecher

Tukker

(2018). Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 90, 65–72.

53.

Scott

C. A.

Kurian

Wescoat

J. L.

(2014). The water-energy-food nexus: Enhancing adaptive capacity to complex global challenges. In Kurian

Ardakanian

(Eds.), Governing the nexus: Water, soil and waste resources considering global change (pp. 15–38). Springer.

54.

SDSN U. N. (2016). Getting started with the SDGs in cities: A guide for stakeholders. http://unsdsn.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/9.1

55.

Sebastian

Oliver

Lei

(2013). Planning: The central mechanism of China’s policy process (Gui Hua: Zhong Guo Zheng Ce Guo Cheng De He Xin Ji Zhi). Open Times, 6, 8–31.

56.

Shi

Shen

(2008). Total factor energy efficiency in China under market segmentation: An empirical analysis based on the super efficiency DEA method. The Journal of World Economy, 2008(9), 49–59.

57.

Singpai

(2020). Using a DEA–AutoML approach to track SDG achievements. Sustainability, 12(23), 10124.

58.

Stafford-Smith

Griggs

Gaffney

Ullah

Reyers

Kanie

Stigson

Shrivastava

Leach

O’Connell

(2017). Integration: The key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability Science, 12, 911–919.

59.

Tremblay

Gowsy

Riffon

(2020). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a basis for innovation: A structured analysis of 136 applications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, Article 123282.

60.

Tuninetti

Tamea

Laio

Ridolfi

(2017). A Fast Track approach to deal with the temporal dimension of crop water footprint. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), Article 074010.

61.

UNGA. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. General Assembly 70 session. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf

62.

Wang

Zhou

(2008). An empirical study on the change of total factor energy efficiency in China. Systems Engineering, 7, 74–80.

63.

Wang

Liu

Zhang

(2009). Evaluation on the sustainable development capability of Inner Mongolia based on DEA method. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 37(19), 9150–9152. https://doi.org/10.13989/j.cnki.0517-6611.2009.19.158

64.

Wang

Luo

Fan

(2010). International comparative research of R&D innovation efficiency based on SE-DEA and Malmquist Index. Science of Science and Management of S.& T., 31(4), 42–49.

65.

Wang

(2011). Research on the evaluation of public service efficiency in China and its influencing mechanism. Research on Financial and Economic Issues, 5, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.19654/j.cnki.cjwtyj.2011.05.003

66.

Wei

Gao

Huang

Song

Wang

Hanqing

(2018). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the response strategies of China. Advances in Earth Science, 33(10), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2018.10.1084

67.

Weitz

Nilsson

Davis

(2014). A nexus approach to the post-2015 agenda. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 34(2), 37–50.

68.

Weitz

Carlsen

Nilsson

Skånberg

(2018). Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability Science, 13, 531–548.

69.

(2006). R&D stock, knowledge function on and productive efficiency. China Economic Quarterly, 3, 1129–1156.

70.

Guo

Yang

Xian

Niu

Liang

Zhang

(2014). What is sustainability science? Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 25(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.2014.01.001

71.

(2006). The evaluation of Beijing sustainable development based on DEA model. Systems Engineering – Theory & Practice, 3, 117–123.

72.

(2013). Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28, 999–1023.

73.

Xiao

Lin

(2014). Government support, R&D management, and technological innovation efficiency: An empirical analysis of Chinese industrial sectors. Journal of Management World, 2014(4), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2014.04.008.

74.

Yang

(2011). On delivery efficiencies of local basic public services and its influencing factors: Based on DEA two-stage approach corrected by bootstrap. Finance and Trade Research, 22(6), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.19337/j.cnki.34-1093/f.2011.06.014

75.

Yang

(2009). Research on regional eco-efficiency of China from 2000 to 2006—An empirical analysis based on DEA. Economic Geography, 29(7), 1197–1202.

76.

Yang

(2019). Government support and R&D efficiency of high-tech industries in China. Studies in Science of Science, 37(1), 70–76+111. https://doi.org/10.16192/j.cnki.1003-2053.2019.01.009.

77.

Yuan

Zhang

Yang

(2009). The total factor energy efficiency measurement of China based on environmental pollution. China Industrial Economics, 2009 (2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.19581/j.cnki.ciejournal.2009.02.008

78.

Zeng

Zhang

(2000). The application of data envelopment analysis in the evaluation of sustainability development. Systems Engineering – Theory & Practice, (08), 114–118.

79.

Zhang

Wang

Fan

(2017). Study on regional sustainable development efficiency measurement and influencing factors: Based on DPSIR-DEA model. China’s Population, Resources and Environment, 27(11), 1–9.

80.

Zhou

Yang

Chen

Zhu

(2018). Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins, development and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(1), 1–16.

81.

Zhu

(2006). The empirical research on R&D efficiency of Chinese high-tech industries. China Industrial Economics, 2006(11), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.19581/j.cnki.ciejournal.2006.11.005

82.

Zhu

Tang

Liu

(2010). Evaluation on rural public service efficiency based on DEA in China. Soft Science, 24(3), 37–43.

83.

Zhu

Liu

(2014). An embedding model of sustainable development and its policy importance for China’s development transition. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 29(4), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-3045.2014.04.003