麦肯锡中国城市可持续发展报告

The China Urban Sustainability Index 2013April 2014

Urban Sustainability Index 2013Xiaopeng LiXiujun LiJonathan WoetzelGengtian ZhangYingjie Zhang

April 2014

v

The Urban China Initiative

Preface

The China Urban Sustainability Index is an annual research project undertaken by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) and the Urban China Initiative (UCI). UCI is a think tank co-founded by McKinsey & Company, Columbia University, and Tsinghua University in 2010. UCI’s mission is to convene leaders from the public and private sectors to promote sustainable urbanization and economic growth in China.

UCI has three goals:

Provide solutions: Develop the latest and best solutions for urban development in China.

Train talent: Create a professional platform to convene domestic and international experts in urban development

Organize dialogues: Organize urbanization discussions at national, provincial and municipal levels.

UCI has been an active contributor to China’s research in urbanization and academic discussions for several years. UCI offers insights and tools for national and local policy makers who shape China’s urbanization path. The China Urban Sustainability Index 2013 is the latest research built on the achievements of A New Tool to Measure Urbanization in China, issued in 2010, and The Urban Sustainability Index 2011.

USI 2013 evaluates the level and potential of China’s urban sustainability development. It does this by analyzing key factors influencing sustainable urban development, identifying bottlenecks restricting sustainable development for different types of cities, finding the gap between Chinese cities and advanced cities in the developed world using international benchmarking and sharing experience from city case studies.

Led by Jonathan Woetzel (a Director of McKinsey & Co. and co-Chair of the Urban China Initiative), USI 2013 is a research collaboration between UCI and a team of McKinsey experts, including Gengtian Zhang, Xiujun Li, Xiaopeng Li and Yingjie Zhang.

Many provincial and municipal government leaders generously assisted us in the

development of detailed case studies in the report. We would like to thank the following individuals:

Liu Ji, Chief Economist of Guangdong DRC; Ma Hangyu, Division Director of Guangdong DRC; Fan Weibin, Deputy Director of Shaanxi DRC; Xu Yuanzhi, Deputy Director of Guizhou DRC; Zhang Zhihong, Division Director of Guizhou DRV; Zhao Feng, Division Director of Shanndong DRC; Tang Aibin, Division Director of Guangxi DRC; Ding Linqiao, Deputy Director of Jinan DRC; Hu Yibin, Deputy Director of Yantai DRC; Rong Yihong, Party Secretary of Fangcheng Gang; Gao Shenge, Chief Economist of Jieyang DRC, Zhang Shuiqing, Division Director of Ningbo DRC; Zhao Liang, Director of Yang Zhou DRC.

Without their support, we would not have been able to analyze and summarize such a vast quantity of local government policies and practices, or share their successful case studies

with our readers.

vi

vii

The Urban China Initiative

Contents

Executive summary

Introduction to the China Urban Sustainability

Index 2013

Changes in urban sustainability from 2008 to 2011 Geographic patterns

Gap with global benchmarks

The principles impacting city sustainability

Economic development is the key

Critical decision-making points to enable a transformation More than 70 million people facing sustainability challenges Example of leading global cities and density turning points Tokyo’s sustainability success

Shaping strategies for cities

Big improvements happen early in a city’s economic development 18Up to cities to determine their own destiny

Rebalance towards society and the environment

Small cities should work with larger cities in a cluster

Summary of best practices

Appendix: City best practices 137910121213141515181820202229

viii

1

The Urban China Initiative

Executive summary

The Urban Sustainable Index (USI) 2013 builds upon the work carried out in USI 2011. USI 2013 has expanded and upgraded the indicators used in USI 2011. The analysis deploys 23 metrics, which cover four categories: economy, society, resources and environment. We ranked 185 cities, of varying sizes and at different stages of development, by their level of sustainability from 2005 to 2011. To ensure data was available, as well as to reflect the full landscape of Chinese cities, our sample includes all levels of cities from municipalities directly under the central government, to county-level cities with populations ranging from 200,000 to 20 million.

Our study also benchmarks sample Chinese cities against advanced global cities. We studied the basic principles affecting the development of urban sustainability in order to identify closely-related features. Our aim is to understand how China’s sustainability drive is evolving, and to provide an international reference for Chinese cities during this process. The indicator system serves as a quantifiable scoring tool to evaluate cities urban

development. With this tool, Chinese cities can identify models for urban development both within China and abroad, based on their own stage of development. Depending on how they scored in each category and their overall score, Chinese cities can also identify their advantages and disadvantages, craft development strategies, and evaluate the potential impact and effectiveness of development policies.

Key findings of the research include the following:

1. Most of China’s cities have improved their level of sustainability in recent years, primarily in the social and environment sub-categories. This reflects both strong underlying progress driven by healthy economic growth and a renewed emphasis on delivering social and environmental benefits.

2. The top 10 cities with best overall sustainability performance are located mostly in the coastal or eastern regions. Cities in the east showed the strongest level of overall sustainability, followed by cities in central and western China. The same is true of city performance in the economic, social and environmental sub-categories studied. From 2008 to 2011, the gap between western and central cities was somewhat widened, with central cities gradually catching up with eastern cities. Situated in geographic locations favorable to trade and investment opportunities, Eastern cities were early beneficiaries of China’s economic liberalization policies. However, since each city is at a different stage of economic development, the strongest economic performers are not necessarily those cities with the fastest improvement in sustainability.

3. In the long term, the sustainability of China’s cities is positively correlated to economic strength, population size, and density, FDI, and migration. However, our sample cities show there are clear turning points at which a city’s sustainability potentially slows down, or stalls. This becomes especially evident when a city with a population size of more than 4.5 million, population density of more than 8000 people per square kilometer, FDI of more than USD 3 billion, or with a more than 30% share of migrants. Most developed Chinese cities are positioned at such sustainability turning points: Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou,

Hangzhou, Tianjin, Chengdu, Nanjing, Shenyang, Wuhan and Chongqing.

2

4. The gap with global benchmark cities is closing slowly. Over the past few years, most Chinese cities are closing in on benchmark cities such as Tokyo, Seoul and London. But unlike the Chinese cities sampled, benchmark international cities are able to improve their levels of sustainability, whether or not they reach turning points in their development. Leading cities make better use of the economic advantages that high population density brings. They are able to deliver security, social stability and efficient allocation and utilization of resources at the same time. Many Chinese cities, especially those that have passed through the turning points, will have their potential for growth limited if they continue to follow existing models of development. A blind pursuit of economic growth, population expansion, and an increase in population density will prevent sustainable progress. Policy-makers in these cities must learn from leading international cities by seeking out new growth models. These include the construction of smart and low-carbon cities, a strategy that would strengthen the urban capacity of these cities. Policy-makers must also improve city planning, construction and management, in the hope that these cities will able to leapfrog development.

5. Bigger improvements in sustainability are possible for cities at earlier stages of economic development. Increases in productivity (GDP per capita), the rise in scale (population and density), and external factors such as FDI and migration demonstrate a much bigger impact on sustainability for cities at earlier stages of economic development, than when they are at a more mature stage of development.

6. Cities can determine their own future; their fate is not determined by GDP, population size or density. Cities can, at any time in their development, make improvements by leveraging inherent strengths, comparative natural advantage or policy instruments. No uniform laws were identified, from our

sample of 185 cities, to interpret short-term changes in a city’s sustainability using only changes in macro variables.

7. When a city’s economy reaches a certain level of maturity, imbalance

emerges between the economy and the social and environmental aspects. Some rich and large cities are developing at the cost of social and environmental deterioration. Population and economic size expansion cannot help them further without social and environmental sacrifice as they lack advanced city management capabilities.

8. During the transformation from small cities to large ones, small cities should better integrate with cluster cities. This would enable them to leverage the advantages of the cluster while contributing their strengths to the entire cluster.

3

The Urban China Initiative

Introduction to the China Urban Sustainability Index 2013

Three years ago, the Urban China Initiative published the Urban Sustainability Index (USI), which provided a comprehensive analysis of the sustainability shifts taking place across cities in China. Since then, the USI has been refined and updated. USI is comprised of a group of indicators that provide a comprehensive assessment of a city’s sustainability performance across four categories: economy, society, resources and environment. USI also accounts for the relationships between sub-categories. USI data provides a rich source for academic research, and serves as a point of reference for China’s policymakers as they evaluate the country’s sustainable development efforts and craft urban development policy.

Deepening reforms

Under the guise of China’s new reforms, more than half the nation’s counties and county-level cities will phase out GDP evaluation. Yang Weimin, Vice Director of the Central Financial Leading Group Office, made this promise at the annual forum of the Urban China Initiative on November 28, 2013. The forum followed the landmark Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee earlier in the month. Two weeks later, CPC’s Organizational Department issued A Notice to Improving the Performance Evaluation of Local Party and Government Leading Bodies and Leading Cadres. The notice asked Communist Party officials to look beyond GDP and other growth rates as main performance indicators, refrain from ranking local GDP and growth rates, or assess the performance of leading cadres based solely on GDP. This represented a sea change in the evaluation of urban performance. It showed a calculated and deliberate decision by the new leadership to assess China’s achievements over the past ten years, and transform its growth model for the future. Economic development as the center of reform has undoubtedly brought prosperity and development to China. However, if priority continues to be placed on maximizing the size and growth rate of the economy, tensions between economic growth, social development, resource utilization, and protection of the environment will worsen, rendering China’s economy development unsustainable.Under the government’s new growth strategy, we expect to see major changes in economic development strategies, with a much greater emphasis on pursuing a more balanced and sustainable set of development metrics.

New urbanization strategy

The Decision reached at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee proposed “a new path of urbanization with Chinese characteristics.”

At the urbanization working conference (following the Third Plenary Session), the Central government emphasized that a national effort was underway to improve the quality and level of urbanization. This would involve making better use of land, managing population concentration, upgrading energy efficiency, reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions, prioritizing environmental security, and increasing forest, lake and wetland conservation. Efforts would also focus on boosting water conservation, reducing discharge of major pollutants, slowing development in some areas, and enhancing the prevention and mitigation of natural disasters.

Given this turn of events, China’s urbanization effort will focus more on economic

sustainability, social development, resource presevation and environmental protection.

4

The forthcoming national urbanization plan will drive this new urbanization strategy, and serve as a guide to sustainable urban development.

Research scope

USI 2013 covers a longer period of time and studies more cities than USI 2011. Raw data was drawn from a seven-year period: 2005-2011; with the most recent data in most cities

dating as of 2011. Raw data in USI 2011 was assembled from a four-year period: 2005-2009. Our research covers all 185 Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities, some county-level cities, as well as prioritized clusters and important clusters as designated in the National Main Functional Cluster Plan (Figure 1). These cities were considered for study because the government recognized them as urbanized areas with population settlement and economic activity. The report includes more key prefecture cities and county cities than the 112 cities analyzed in USI 2011.Figure 1Geographic coverage of USI2013 cities

Jingjinji

JiCentral South

TianshanNorthCentral

Guanzhong-Tianshui

Ningxia Yellow River

Lan-Xi

InnerMongolia

XinjiangGansu

Qinghai

Shaanxi

Wuhan

Chengdu

Chongqing

GuizhouCentral

Yunnan Central

Chang-Zhu-Tan

Gulf of TonkinYunnanTibetSichuanHenanHubeiJiangsuJiangxiGulf westJilinLiaoningPrioritized clusterImportant clusterCities in USI2013HeilongjiangHa-QiChang-Ji-TuLiao Central SouthShandong BylandEast SeaJianghuaiShanghaiYangzi River DeltaPoyang lakePearl River Delta

HainanSource: McKinsey analysis, UCI

Cities included in 2013 index

Anhui

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9HefeiMa'anshanWuhuAnqingChizhouTonglingChaohuChuzhouXuanchengGuangdong232425262728293031

32

33

34

35

36

37ShenzhenGuangzhouZhuhaiZhanjiangShantouFoshanZhongshanShaoguanDongguanHuizhouJiangmenZhaoqingJieyangChaozhouShanweiHebei5253545556575859TangshanBaodingShijiazhuangQinhuangdaoHandanLangfangHuanghuaXingtaiHunan848586878889909192XiangtanChangshaYueyangZhangjiajieZhuzhouChangdeHengyangYiyangLoudiJilin112113114115116117118ChangchunJilinSongyuanYanjiLongjingTumenHunchunShandong139140141142143144145146147148149150RizhaoQingdaoWeihaiJinanYantaiZiboTai'anZaozhuangJiningWeifangDongyingBinzhouXinjiang165166167168169170171172173UrumqiKaramayChangjiShiheziKuitunWusuBoleYiningFukangBeijing10BeijingChongqing11Chongqing

Fujian

12

13

14

15

16

17

18PutianXiamenQuanzhouFuzhouZhangzhouNingdeWuyishanHeilongjiang6061626364656667686970

71

72DaqingHarbinMudanjiangQiqiharSuifenheZhengzhouLuoyangAnyangJiaozuoKaifengPingdingshanXuchangXinxiangLiaoning119120121122123124DalianBenxiShenyangAnshanFushunJinzhouInner Mongolia93Hohhot94Baotou95ChifengJiangsu96979899100101102103

104

105NanjingNantongSuzhouLianyungangWuxiChangzhouYangzhouXuzhouZhenjiangTaizhouYunnan174175176177KunmingQujingYuxiChuxiongShanghai151ShanghaiShanxi152153154155156TaiyuanChangzhiLinfenYangquanDatongGuangxi383940414243LiuzhouBeihaiGuilinNanningQinzhouFanggangchengHenanNingxia125126127128YinchuanShizuishanWuzhongZhongweiZhejiang178179180181182183184

185HangzhouNingboWenzhouJiaxingShaoxingTaizhouHuzhouZhoushanQinghai129Xining130Geermu

Shanxi

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138TongchuanXi'anXianyangYan'anBaojiWeinanShangluoXingpingGansu19202122LanzhouJinchangTianshuiBaiyinGuizhou4445464748GuiyangZunyiAnshunDuyunKailiSichuan157158159160161162163ChengduMianyangPanzhihuaLuzhouYibinDeyangLeshanHubei7374757677787980

81

82

83WuhanJingzhouYichangHuangshiHuanggangEzhouXiaoganXianningXiantaoQianjiangTianmenJiangxi106107108109110111NanchangJiujiangJingdezhenYingtanXinyuFuzhouHainan49Haikou50Sanya51WenchangTianjin164Tianjin

5

The Urban China Initiative

Index selection

We used the same index system framework for USI 2013, as we used for USI 2011. The

evaluation was done by breaking down the issues into four categories for analysis: economy, society, resources and the environment, (including cleanliness and the built environment). We selected 23 indicators for the index to quantify the level of sustainability (Figure 2). This took into consideration the 17 indicators in USI 2011 and the 34 indicators proposed in the China Urbanization Index by UCI and the NDRC in 2012. To bolster the emphasis on quality of life compared to USI 2011, USI 2013 has replaced or added indicators such as per capita disposable income, employment rate, number of doctors per capita, pension and healthcare coverage rates, air quality, water supply coverage, internet access and water usage efficiency.Figure 223 indicators are included in four categories with emphasis on Society and Environment

Category

(weight = 100%)Components (weight within category = 100%)

Employment (25%)

Society(33%)Social welfare(33%)Doctor resource (25%)Education (25%)

Pension (13%)

Healthcare (13%)

Air pollution (11%)

Cleanliness(17%)

Environment(33%)

Built environment(17%)Industrial pollution (11%)Air qualified days (11%)Waste water treatment (11%)Household waste management (5%)Urban density (11%)Mass transit usage (11%)Public green space(11%)

Public water supply (5%)

Internet access (11%)

Economy(17%)Economic development(17%)

Resource utilization(17%)Income level (33%)Reliance on heavy industry (33%)Capacity investment (33%)Energy consumption (33%)Power efficiency(33%)

Water efficiency2(33%)IndicatorsUrban employment rate (%)Bold = indicator not in USI2011Number of doctors per capita (per thousand persons)Middle school students in young population (%)Pension security coverage (%)Health care security coverage (%)Concentration of SO2, NO2, PM10 (mg per cubic meter)Industrial SO2 discharged per unit GDP (tons per bnRMB)Days of air qualified equal or above level II1(%)Wastewater treatment rate (%)Domestic waste treated (%)Persons per square kilometer of urban areaPassengers using public transit (per capita)Area of public green space (%)Public water supply coverage (%)Household access to Internet (%)Disposable income per capitaGDP from service industry (%)Government investment in R&D (per capita)Total energy consumption (SCEper unit GDP)Residential power consumption (kwh per capita)Total water consumption (liters per unit GDP)Resources(17%)

1Air qualified days defined as days qualified equal or above Air Pollution Index level II. There are six levels by API. Level II means air quality is general acceptable to public, except for specially sensitive population.

2Cities are classified by water resource and then are scored within their own group to minimize distortion by natural water resource

SOURCE: McKinsey analysis, UCI

Research methodology

To calculate scores, we standardized all indicators’ dimensions so that they could be added to, or compared with each other. The calculated mean of the year before and after, or the average growth rate of nearby years, was used to fill the data gaps for some years.

In USI 2011, we assigned equal importance to the four sub-categories. In USI 2013 society and environment are given more weight – each is worth 1/3 of the whole – than economic and resources, each of which is worth 1/6 of the whole.

In addition to the analysis of the traditional set of key drivers, USI 2013 made additional breakthroughs in three areas:

Firstly, we focus more on growth analysis than on static level analysis. We not only ranked cities by their current sustainability scores, but also calculated the compound

annual growth rate of each indicator, gave them the same weight as in the original system, and calculated the growth rate of sustainability. As a result, we are able to deduce which cities, albeit at different stages of economic development, grow fastest. Consequently, this allows us to study the drivers of growth.

6

Second, to identify examples of outstanding development in cities, and to help encourage their further development, we benchmarked domestic cities with 11 international cities, including London, Berlin, Paris, Prague, Warsaw, Stockholm, Copenhagen, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Seoul.

Third, we summarized city growth strategies through quantitative analysis, and conducted 9 case city studies to understand the characteristics of different cities, including their advantages and disadvantages, and identify relevant growth strategies.

7

The Urban China Initiative

Changes in urban sustainability from 2008 to 2011

On the whole, most Chinese cities have seen a gradual improvement in

sustainability in recent years (Figure 3). Average growth rate of sustainability from 2008 to 2011 is around 3%. Some cities experience high growth of 7-9%, while about 10 cities experience negative growth. Social and environmental changes primarily lead this type of change. Compared with 2011, social and environmental indicators in sub-category indicators were quite different from 2008 (Figure 4). Small cities (GDP below USD 5 billion at 2008) show larger changes in social indicators than medium (GDP between USD 5 billion and 20 billion at 2008) and large cities (GDP larger than 20 billion at 2008). However, in economic and environmental indicators medium/large cities have bigger improvements than small cities. Medium cities exhibit the largest changes in built environmental-related indicators.

As shown by Figure 4, Chinese cities experienced the most significant changes in urban healthcare and pension insurance coverage, waste water management and industrial air pollution, internet access coverage and mass-transit utilization.

Top overall performers in 2011 were Zhuhai, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Dalian, Fuzhou, Beijing, Changsha and Yantai (Figure 5). Except for Changsha, all top 10 cities are in eastern China. Except for Changsha and Beijing, 8 out of 10 are located in coastal clusters, such as the Pearl River Delta, Yangzi River Delta, Gulf West, Shandong Byland, etc. Three cities are in the Pearl River Delta cluster in Guangdong Province, namely Zhuhai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou. This suggests coastal clusters are enjoying the fruits of earlier economic openness, and with their superior geographic access, are currently the most successful and sustainable areas in China.

These top 10 cities constitute around 1% of China’s urban population and 16% of its urban GDP. Except for the mega-cities of Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Beijing, most of the top 10 performers are medium-sized cities with urban population of 1.5-6.5 million; with 6 out of 10 cities home to a 2-4 million population. All of them have a population density of 7,000-

8

10,000 people per square kilometer, with the exception of Beijing, which is more densely populated, with around 14000 people per square kilometer. All top performers have a GDP per capita level of 90-100,000 RMB, and can be compared with other top GDP performers in China, where GDP per capita reaches 200,000 RMB. The comparisons indicate that, in terms of their population and economic size, the winners are well-managed in their economic development. We will explore these characteristics in greater depth later in the report.

Figure 5Top 10 cities in sustainability1

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10Overall scoreZhuhaiShenzhenHangzhouXiamenGuangzhouDalianFuzhouBeijingChangshaYantaiSocietyKaramayZhuhaiYangquanBeijingShaoguanZhaoqingGuangzhouPanzhihuaDaqingHangzhouEnvironmentShenzhenZhuhaiXiamenHaikouFuzhouQingdaoHangzhouChangzhouKaramayDalianEconomyBeijingShanghaiShaoxingShenzhenHangzhouSuzhouWuxiNingboJiaxingChangshaResourceNingdeBeijingZhangzhouShangluoZhongshanPutianFoshanHangzhouZhanjiangNantong

1 The ranks are based on data in 2011

Source: McKinsey analysis; UCI

Current top performers are not necessarily the same as those cities which have demonstrated the biggest improvements in sustainability. Chinese cities develop differently depending on GDP size (Figure 6). In the group of cities with the largest GDP (GDP greater than USD 20 billion), Xi’an, Changzhou, Zhongshan, show the largest improvements in sustainability, with around 5% annual growth from 2008 to 2011. In the group of cities with medium-sized GDP (GDP between USD 5 billion and 20 billion), Xinyu, Fuzhou and Zhanjiang, have roughly 7% growth. The cities of Jieyang, Sanya and Shanwei, all in the group with small-sized GDP (GDP size smaller than USD 5 billion), show high growth rates of 7-9%. Most of the cities in the top 5 in each group are from the eastern and coastal areas of China.

9

The Urban China Initiative

Geographic patterns

Are cities in different regions across China at clearly different levels of sustainability? In 2011, there was a distinct correlation between a city’s level of sustainability and its geographic location. In eastern China, 72 cities performed in the top quintile of

sustainability, with a high percentage of cities performing very well. They were followed by 61 cities in central China – most of them in the upper middle section of the rankings. 52 western cities came last, with a majority of poor performers dragging the overall result down.

We have been able to observe huge differences in every region based on an in-depth study of the economy, society, resources and the environment. Eastern cities scored the highest in resources, but the lowest in social development. Central cities scored the highest in resources, but the lowest in economy. Western cities performed best in social development, but the worst in resources. Despite a low overall score, central China

and western China were relatively close in social development performance to those in eastern China (Figure 7).

Moreover, the central region improved the most, while the western region demonstrated the least improvement. These results were arrived at by comparing regional changes during the period 2008-2011: despite the fact that the three regions retained the same

ranking, the central region slowly caught up with the eastern region, and the gap between the western and central regions widened.

Of the 24 clusters studied, Pearl River Delta, Yangzi River Delta and Shandong Byland emerged with a clear advantage over all the others in 2011. These top-performers scored around 75, while the others scored 60 or below. Despite the size of their economy,

Jianghuai, Poyang Lake and Ha-Qi improved more than the other clusters over the period 2008-2011. Their rate of sustainable growth rose at a rate of approximately 5%, while the other clusters climbed at a rate of 4%, or lower. Five clusters are listed in the top 10 in both overall sustainability level and improvement rankings, namely Pearl River Delta, Chengdu, Poyang Lake, Jianghuai and Ha-Qi (Figure 8).

10Figure 7The east outperformed the central and the west in all categories at 2011 with the gap enlarging in the past yearsEastCentral

2011 category performance

Index

63.9

46.752.4

43.238.532.168.648.470.7

51.443.529.437.467.047.450.9%West2008-11 growthNational2011 overall performanceIndex65.944.751.037.7

Society

2.01.52.31.9

Top 3 cities

EastZhuhai, Beijing, ShaoguanEconomy11.511.18.310.4Resource-0.32.00.20.6Environment3.03.02.52.93.03.22.62.9Beijing, Shanghai, Shaoxing

Changsha, Hefei,

Zhengzhou

Huhehaote,

Kunming, Yan’anNingde, Beijing, ZhangzhouShangluo, Hefei, ChangchunYan’an,Xi’an, BaojiShenzhen, Zhuhai,XiamenChangsha, Nanchang, TaiyuanKaramay, Kunming, GuiyangCentralYangquan, Daqing, HuangshiWestKaramay, Panzhihua, Xi’an

SOURCE: McKinsey analysis; UCI

Gap with global benchmarks

We selected 11 global cities as benchmarks including Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong,

Copenhagen, London, Berlin, Stockholm, Prague, Paris, New York and Warsaw. Broadly speaking, most Chinese cities, such as Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Changsha, are catching up with our benchmark global cities, while several cities, including Shanghai, Ningbo and Dalian, have been gradually falling behind in recent years (Figure 9). Chinese cities are slowly narrowing the gap with the global benchmark cities. The pace at which they are catching-up increased from 0.4% to around 1% during 2008-2011.

The main gaps between Chinese cities and their international counterparts are in social, economic and environmental categories (Figure 10), and more specifically in social and environmental cleanliness categories, such as urban employment, per capita doctor numbers, industrial air pollution, air qualified days, and waste

water treatment. We arrived at this conclusion by comparing each indicator of the

sub-categories. Meanwhile, a comparison of category indicators shows that our global benchmark cities perform better in all society indicators than our leading Chinese cities.

11

The Urban China Initiative

For example, international cities have 4.5 doctors per thousand people, whereas our

leading Chinese cities have 2.6 doctors per thousand people. The 11 global cities in our

study also perform better in income per capita and in the strength of their service sectors than Chinese cities. Cities in which the service sector comprises 80% of GDP enjoy stronger economic growth and employment, as well as cleaner environments.

The gap in environmental indicators is very large. Leading global cities have much better air quality, as well as waste management. The concentration of air pollutants such as

NO2, SO2 and PM10, in international cities we studied is far lower than in Chinese cities. Emissions of industrial SO2 are just 1/20th the level measured in Mainland Chinese cities. We carried out a limited comparison of resource indicators, due to differences in statistical standards between global and Chinese cities.

12

The principles impacting city sustainability

To understand the basic principles that influence sustainability in Chinas cities sustainability, we conducted a correlation analysis between the level of sustainability and various factors. Economic development is the key

To identify the common principles underlying long-term sustainability drivers, we conducted a correlation analysis for all cities in the same year. As cities are at different development stages, their current performance can be used to represent the long term evolution of

Chinese cities. Our results show that the long-term sustainability of Chinese cities is closely correlated to the economy, population size and density. Cities in China that demonstrate an outstanding performance in sustainability share the same characteristics of cities in well-developed economies. These include population size and density, as well as foreign direct investment (FDI), all of which appear to be correlated to sustainability.In general, there is a positive correlation between a city’s sustainability and its GDP per capita (Figure 11). Most economically advanced cities, such as Shenzhen,

Guangzhou and Zhuhai, have higher levels of sustainability than poorer ones. The economic impact on sustainability is, however, diminished once GDP per capita reaches a certain level. Some economically advanced cities are ranked lower in terms of sustainability than other

cities with less advanced economies. For example, Xuzhou’s GDP per capita is higher than that of Xiamen, but Xuzhou has a lower sustainability ranking than Xiamen. There is also a gradual weakening of the correlation between sustainability and the level of economic development of a city over different periods of time. This suggests that it would be difficult to improve a city’s sustainability by improving its GDP per capita alone, particularly once the city has reached a certain level of economic development. Economically advanced cities in China should focus more attention on social development, environmental protection and resource efficiency.

13

The Urban China Initiative

We identified similar relationships among the sub-categories of sustainability. There is a high correlation between the economy and the other three categories: society, environment and resources. This suggests that if a city’s economy is strong, then it will usually perform well in at least two of the other three areas: society, resources and/or environment. The conclusion here is that cities can and should develop their economies, as well as their society, resources and environment, at the same time (Figure 12).

Critical decision-making points to enable a transformation

We found that there is a positive correlation between the level of sustainability and

population size as well. This relationship is evident only when a population is smaller than

4.5 million (correlation 0.65). For cities with a population of more than 4.5 million, the correlation drops to 0.21. The turning point is shown clearly in Figure 13. This means that the expansion of a population will help improve a city’s sustainability, but only up to the 4.5 million mark. Beyond 4.5 million, population expansion will no longer drive improvement in a city’s level of sustainability. The urban populations we used in this report are based on the 2010 Census. From this perspective, we believe that Chinese cities, based on our sample analysis, should recognize the need to transform their growth models

when their populations reach the critical turning point of 4.5 million.

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/75o1.html