Urban environmental performance in China: a sustainability divide?

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

* Correspondence to: Lee Liu, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Central Missouri, Wood 8, Warrensburg, MO 64093, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 17, 1–18 (2009)Published online 20 October 2008 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.356

Urban Environmental Performance in China: A Sustainability Divide?

Lee Liu*Department of Geography and Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Central Missouri,

Warrensburg, MO, USA

ABSTRACTThis paper explores a sustainability divide in urban environmental protection in China with its 72 Model Cities, 113 key cities, and 43 most polluted cities. It investigates factors that help understand such a divide, the applicability of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), and policies for sustainable urban development. Geographic information systems (GIS) and statistical analyses used data derived from documents, statistical records, publications, on-site inspections and fi eld research. The key cities were divided into seven groups based on eight environmental indicators. The research found a sustainability gap between eastern and western cities, or between Model Cities and other key cities. Oddly, environmental spending was not found to be an explanation. The paper argues that sustainability studies needs to move beyond the EKC to consider the role of nature. Chinese policy makers should not use the Model Cities to support the ‘grow fi rst and clean up later’ approach. Instead they should promote sustainability in all parts of China. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 11 October 2007; revised 24 January 2008; accepted 29 January 2008

Keywords: sustainable development; environmental Kuznets curve; urban environmental protection; environmental policy;

sustainability; China

Introduction

CHINA’S CITIES ARE KNOWN FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. FOR EXAMPLE, BLACKSMITH INSTITUTE SELECTS

Linfen and Tianying in China as the two most polluted places in the world (Time, 2007). The Worldwatch

Institute reports that 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in China, and pollution continues to

worsen and spread far beyond the country’s borders (Fincher, 2006). The International Energy Agency

predicts that China will overtake the United States as the world’s largest emitter of CO2 before 2010 (IEA, 2006).

Worsening pollution and environmental deterioration in China’s large cities are accompanied by over three-

quarters of the urban population exposed to air quality that does not meet the national ambient air quality

standards of China (Shao et al., 2006; Jiang and Gao, 2007). A World Health Organization (WHO) report

estimates that diseases triggered by indoor and outdoor air pollution kill 656 000 Chinese citizens each year, and

polluted drinking water kills another 95 600 (Platt, 2007).

2 L. Liu

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 17, 1–18 (2009)DOI: 10.1002/sd

Sustainable Development (SD) has published numerous articles on sustainability issues in China. For example,

Wu and Flynn (1995) and Geng et al. (2007) point out that China urgently needs to adopt a sustainability approach

due to escalating environmental and resource problems. Imura and Bai (2001) reported problems in sustainable

water resource management in Chinese cities, using Tianjin City as an example. Encouraged by economic growth

theories, China continues to push for rapid economic growth at the expense of the environment (Chan and Ma,

2004). However, conventional wisdom has not paid attention to the increasing efforts at both local and national

levels to deal with urban environmental problems in China. Luken and Hesp (2007) fi nd that China has increas-

ingly aligned its industrial development objectives with those of sustainable development. Sustainability programs

in China have produced some positive impacts (Liu, 2008). Increase in pollution was slower than GDP growth in

China from 1990 to 2005 (OECD, 2006), and China’s environmental spending has increased and is planned to

outpace GDP growth (Li, 2006), reaching a record high of 1.23 percent in 2006 (SEPA, 2006a). Burstrom and

Korhonen (2001) and Bithas and Christofakis (2006) emphasize that sustainability in urban areas is particularly

important, due to rapid urbanization and the role that cities play in environmental protection and sustainability.

Since 1996, China has been developing national environmental-protection ‘model cities,’ which are cities that meet

State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) criteria on urban economic, social and ecological sustain-

ability. By 2008, SEPA had named 72 such model cities (SEPA, 2008a). SEPA has conducted annual environmen-

tal performance reviews on 509 cities. It selected 113 ‘key cities’ for environmental protection, which have been

monitored closely and pressured to improve their environmental performance since 2003 (SEPA, 2005, 2006b).

Interesting questions emerged from my reviewing of this Chinese experience. Where are these model cities,

key cities and most polluted cities? How green are the model cities? Is there any spatial pattern of China’s urban

environmental protection and sustainability? Is there a sustainability divide? If there is, why does such a divide

exist? What are the theoretical and policy implications of China’s experience of urban environmental protection?

These questions were seldom asked. The objective of this paper was to answer these questions by examining

China’s model cities, key cities and most polluted cities in the context of the environmental Kuznets curve

(EKC).

This article pays special attention to environmental sustainability and regards it as a process in which the envi-

ronment is protected or improved while the society meets its present needs. A sustainability divide refers to a wide

inter-regional gap in environmental performance. The theoretical context of the research is the dynamic relation

between urban development and the environment. Conventional theories claim that economic growth is the key

in this relation. The EKC concept was developed by Grossman and Krueger (1993, 1995) and Roberts and Grimes

(1997), based on the work of Nobel Laureate Kuznets (1955) on the relation between economic growth and income

inequality. The EKC argues that, while the initial stages of economic growth are accompanied by increasing envi-

ronmental degradation, once per capita income exceeds a given threshold, not only does the structure of the

economy change, but people can also afford to demand a better environment (Beckerman, 1992; Shafi k, 1994).

In other words, poor areas or countries do not have the fi nancial or institutional capacity or political will to protect

the environment (Dasgupta et al., 2006). As the EKC has been regarded as the optimal growth path (Chimeli and

Braden, 2002), the belief of high income as a precondition for environmental recovery has attracted a great deal

of attention in development and environmental policy (Beckerman, 1992; World Bank, 1992; Ezzati et al., 2001).

Some policy makers and researchers have cited the EKC model when arguing that developing countries should

‘grow fi rst and clean up later’ (Dasgupta et al., 2006). However, many publications challenge the applicability of

the EKC, given that some environmental indicators appear to improve with growth whilst others deteriorate (e.g.

Cole, 1999; Ezzati et al., 2001; Fonkych and Lempert, 2005).

The applicability of the EKC to China has been widely debated (for details see Liu, 2008). The EKC has been

found useful in explaining trends in air pollution in 81 cities in China (Fan, 2002), air quality in the Shanghai

region (Chen and Liu, 2004), municipal solid waste growth in Shanghai City (Yang et al., 2003) and environmen-

tal pollution in China (Peng and Bao, 2006). However, many others challenge the applicability of the EKC to China

(Cao et al., 2006; Qu, 2006; Liu, 2008). A few publications have examined the regional difference in environmen-

tal performance in China. Hu (2006) found eastern China more effi cient than other parts of China in air pollution

abatement, in support of the EKC. On the other hand, Du et al. (2006) applied the ecological footprint method to

study cities in eastern China, Guangzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou and Yangzhou, and found them ecologically unsustain-

able. Chen et al. (2006) point out that the ecological defi cits per person in southern and eastern China were more

Urban environmental performance in China: a sustainability divide? 3


severe than those in northern and western China. This paper intends to contribute to such debates theoretically

and empirically, based on newly available data and fi eld work.

Data and Methodology

Data on the model cities, key cities and most polluted cities was derived from documents, statistical records and

publications by SEPA, National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and local governments. Additional information was

collected during on-site inspections and fi eld research in China in 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2007. Though serious

problems remain, China’s Model City Program is well developed enough to be meaningful. Field visits indicate

that model cities perform better in sustainability than neighboring cities. SEPA has published environmental

performance reviews on China’s 509 cities since 2003. Its annual reports on China Urban Environmental Man-

agement and Integrated Control provide measurements of eight environmental indicators on the 113 key cities.

They include three air quality indicators: the concentration of urban particulates (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and

nitrogen oxides (NO2), in addition to percent urban toxic waste, wastewater and garbage treated, urban green cover

and environmental spending as a percentage of GDP. For purposes of comparison among the cities, this paper

derived an environmental performance index (EPI) score, which represents an equally weighted average of the

eight indicator scores. This may not be the perfect method, as some indicators may be more important than others.

However, it provided the opportunity to compare the cities before further research is conducted to develop a better

index. This paper further divides the 113 key cities into seven groups by using the EPI scores derived from the

2004 and 2005 reports. Published data on the 2003 report was not detailed enough to be included in statistical

analyses.

The research uses geographic information systems (GISs) to help examine the spatial patterns and the environ-

mental, cultural and economic factors that may contribute to the spatial patterns. The 113 key cities are large cities

at or above the prefecture level. The administrative area of these cities includes a few cities and counties, in addi-

tion to its administrative center in the urban districts of the city. Much of the administrative area is rural. It was

not appropriate to select the entire administrative area since the assessment was on the urban area only. On the

other hand, the assessment was done beyond just the urban district area. There was a problem regarding the size

of these cities to be mapped. As a compromise, the urban districts of these cities were mapped with a 10 km buffer.

China’s 43 most polluted cities in 2005 are mapped along with the model cities to detect regional differences in

environmental performance. This paper divides China into eastern and western, rather than eastern, central and

western as some publications do. Eastern China in this paper includes all the easternmost provinces, in addition

to Anhui and Guangxi, which share similar characteristics in environmental performance with traditional eastern

provinces. Statistical analyses compared environmental performance between key cities in eastern and western

China to examine the regional divide. To help understand why some cities perform better than others, comparison

was made between model cities and other cities. Jiangsu and Shandong provinces were used as case studies,

because they appeared to be leaders in urban environmental protection in China. In 2008, Jiangsu has four state

eco-cities and 17 model cities, which are two-thirds and one-quarter of China’s totals, respectively, and Shandong

Province has 16 model cities (SEPA, 2008a). All China’s three model urban agglomerations are in Jiangsu or

Shandong.

The reliability and accuracy of Chinese offi cial data have been often questioned. This article takes a critical view

of the offi cial data, in addition to checking its reliability and accuracy during fi eld visits. Suspected data problems

were taken into consideration when drawing conclusions. Over-reporting of achievements by governmental

offi cials has been widely suspected. The major suspicion has been over the GDP data, as GDP growth has been

used for the promotion of governmental offi cials. It seems also likely that governmental offi cials over-report

their environmental achievements. However, SEPA would have mixed and contradictory interests. It would be less

likely to hide environmental problems while requesting additional investment in environmental protection. As

China’s environmental watchdogs, SEPA offi cials are often among the most critical of China’s environment.

This article is mainly based on data provided by SEPA. As a result, environmental achievements reported in

this article are less likely over-reported, though a cautious and critical view was employed for interpretation and

conclusion.

4 L. Liu


China’s Efforts in Urban Environmental Protection

Major activities in urban environmental protection are summarized in Table 1. SEPA started the Model City

Program in 1997. Zhangjiagang was named as the fi rst model city, followed by fi ve others that year. In the follow-

ing years, more model cities were named. Associated assessment standards and procedures were published in

2002 and revised in 2005 by SEPA (2006c). Most of the standards are concerned with environmental protection

(Table 2). However, there are social economic requirements also, including GDP growth rates and family planning

targets. Among others, SEPA requires model cities to be above national average in all aspects of environmental

performance. A very important requirement is the use of environmental-protection performance to evaluate gov-

ernmental offi cials. Regulations on developing and managing model cities were published in 2006 (Table 2). These

regulations require cities to follow a public notifi cation rule. Information on the would-be accredited cities is posted

for public feedback on local, provincial and state government web sites (SEPA, 2006c). The accredited model cities

are required to report their progress each year to the provincial environmental protection bureau and be reviewed

every three years by SEPA.

China’s fi rst environmental protection model urban agglomeration was established by the end of 2002

on Jiaodong Peninsula of Shandong (ChinaNet, 2003). By 2005, the number of model cities increased to six in

Shuzhou region and three in Changzhou region in Jiangsu Province. They formed two additional urban

Year Activities and events

1996 First Five-Year Plan on State Environmental Protection promulgated.1997 Model City Program starts to develop cities with rapid economic growth, clean exquisite environment and

sustainable ecologyZhangjiagang was named as state model city, followed by fi ve others

1998 Five model cities named1999 Five model cities named

Model City Program expanded to include urban districts (Qu) in large cities2000 Four model cities named

47 cities selected as key cities to submit quarterly environmental performance report to SEPA2001 Four model cities named2002 Eight model cities named

Model city assessment standards and procedures publishedFirst model urban agglomeration developed in Shandong

2003 Three model cities named66 additional key cities selected

2004 Twelve model cities named2005 Nine model cities named

2004 China Urban Environmental Management and Integrated Control Annual Report releasedThe First China Model City Mayors Summit heldModel City Photo Exhibit heldModel city assessment standards and procedures revised

2006 Four model cities namedFour ecological cities certifi ed (all in Jiangsu)Regulations on developing and managing state model cities published2005 China Urban Environmental Management and Integrated Control Annual Report releasedThe largest model urban agglomeration developed in Jiangsu

2007 Four model cities named

Table 1. Urban environmental protection activities and events, 1996–2007Source: Compiled by author.



Criterion standards

Basic requirements 1 Among provincial top fi ve best rated cities for overall environmental performance in all past three years (excluding

those that were already model cities) 2 No major environmental accidents in the urban districts in past three years 3 Environmental spending >1.7 percent GDP

Social economic standards 4 Above national level average GDP growth rate in the past three years

*GDP per capita >¥15 000: cities in Western China may use the urban districts alone 5 All family planning targets met 6 Below national level industrial energy consumption with decreasing trend in the past three years. 2007 target: 2.59 tons

of standard coal per 10 000 yuan GDP 7 Below national level per unit GDP water consumption with decreasing trend in past three years. 2007 target: 56.82 tons

per 10 000 yuan GDP 8 Below national level per unit GDP industrial pollutants discharged with decreasing trend in the past three years.

2007 targets per 10 000 yuan GDP: waste water, 31.61 tons; COD, 0.0072 tons; SO2, 0.028 tons; dust and smoke, 0.012 tons

Environmental quality 9 Over 310 days a year with API <10010 >96% of water up to quality standard in drinking water source areas11 100% of urban discharged water up to quality standard12 Urban environment noise level <60 dB(A)13 Main road traffi c noise level <70 dB(A)

Environmental construction14 >10% of total area in protected area15 >35% of total area in green area (per capita green area above national level for cities in western China)16 >80% urban waste water centrally treated17 100% major industrial wastes treated to standard; 100% factories reporting registered pollutants18 Clean energy use >50% total energy consumption19 >65% urban areas using central heating (excluding cities in southern China)20 >85% urban vehicles inspected for environmental standards21 >85% urban garbage treated for environmental standards22 >90% industrial solid waste treated or reused23 100% toxic wastes treated

Environmental management24 Government offi cials assigned environmental protection responsibilities and evaluated partly with environmental

protection performance. Environmental conditions published regularly25 Meeting state requirements for environmental evaluation of development projects and plans; implementing the safety

and environmental standards for new projects27 Meeting over 80% of state main targets for pollution control and environmental protection28 Public environmental satisfaction rating >85%29 Environmental education integrated into school curriculum >85%30 Achievements in public health and preventing urban environmental pollution from harming nearby rural areas

Table 2. Standards for model cities* GDP per capita of ¥7 000 in 2001 was the dividing line for more developed and less developed regions. $1 was equal to about ¥8 in 2001.Sources: Compiled by author from SEPA (2006c).

6 L. Liu


agglomerations (Li and Zhou, 2005). When the state named Yixing City as a model city in late 2006, China’s

largest greening urban agglomeration was formed, which includes all 12 cities in Suzhou, Wuxi and Changzhou

regions in Jiangsu Province. Guangdong Province intends to turn all nine cities on the Zhujiang Delta into model

cities, thus creating another model urban agglomeration by 2010 (Qu and Sun, 2004).

While participation in the Model City Program is voluntary, cities all over the country are required to meet

certain environmental standards. In 2000, SEPA (2003) selected 47 key cities for pollution control and required

them to conduct quarterly environmental performance evaluations. The number of this kind of city increased to

113 by 2003. SEPA (2004) have issued circulars requesting the worst 10 cities to improve their performance and

all cities to meet air quality standards. SEPA has also released their 2004 and 2005 Annual Report on China Urban

Environmental Management and Integrated Control. The report emphasizes environmental quality, pollution

control and construction of urban environmental infrastructure (SEPA, 2005, 2006b). Among others, it lists

China’s most polluted cities each year and pressures them to improve. The report also publishes the ten cities

ranked the lowest percent of industrial discharged waste water meeting standard, lowest percent of industrial

discharged SO2 meeting standard, lowest percent of industrial discharged dust and smoke meeting standard, and

lowest percent of urban discharged waste water centrally treated (SEPA, 2006c).

Spatial Patterns of Urban Environmental Performance in China

Among China’s 657 cities, model cities tend to be large cities, including one of the four municipalities Tianjin

plus two districts in Shanghai and two in Chongqing municipalities. Model cities include seven (26 percent) of

the 27 provincial capitals and 10 (67 percent) of the 15 associated-provincial-level cities, but only 29 (11 percent) of

the 268 prefecture-level cities and 23 (6 percent) of 370 county-level cities. Spatial analyses show that cities along

China’s eastern coast were favored for model cities (Figure 1). China’s fi rst model city, Zhangjiagang City, is in

Jiangsu on the coast. By 2004, SEPA had named 35 model cities, which were all in eastern China, with ten in

Jiangsu, ten in Shandong, fi ve in Guangdong and three in Zhejiang. Cities in other parts of China began to become

models cities only in 2004 and progress has been very slow. Sixty-three of China’s 72 model cities are in eastern

China and only nine in western China (Figure 1). All three model urban agglomerations are in eastern China along

the coast: Weihai in Shandong, and Suzhou and Changzhou in Jiangsu. Four cities in Jiangsu were certifi ed as

China’s fi rst state eco-cities: Zhangjiagang, Changsu, Kunshan and Jiangyin. These cities became model cities fi rst

and then demonstration eco-communities (Liu, 2008), before being accredited eco-cities.

By contrast, China’s most polluted cities tend to be in western China. Among the 113 key cities, seven had air

quality lower than Grade III in 2005. All seven were in western China: Datong, Yangquan and Linfen in Shanxi,

Yibin in Sichuan, Lanzhou and Jinchang in Gansu and Wulumuqi in Xinjiang. Only four of the 43 most polluted

cities in 2005 were in eastern China, with three in Hebei and one in Guangxi (Figure 1). A sustainability divide

is obvious between eastern and western China (Figure 1). Eastern China has more model cities, while western

China has the majority of the most polluted cities. The most polluted cities also tend to concentrate in northern

China, along a belt including eight provinces from Hebei to Xinjiang. Only seven of the 43 most polluted cities

are in southern China. It could be argued there is also a north–south divide of most polluted cities, while there is

no north–south divide of model cities.

While a clear divide exists between the model cities in eastern China and most polluted cities in western China,

the spatial pattern is less clear-cut for the 113 key cities mapped by their EPI scores (Figure 2). There are cities in

the highest or lowest categories in different parts of the country. However, cities along the eastern coast still tend

to be in better categories than cities in western China. Twenty-fi ve of the 28 cities in Categories 1 and 2 are in

eastern provinces (Table 3). The exceptions are Kelamayi in Xinjiang, Jinyang in Sichuan and Shizhuishan in

Ningxia. On the other hand, none of the worst 22 cities are in coastal provinces, and only four in eastern China

(Table 4).

Cities in eastern China have a mean EPI of 53.85, signifi cantly higher than a mean of 44.51 for cities in western

China (Table 5). Eastern cities scored signifi cantly better than western cities on six of the eight indicators, while

there is no difference in NO2 levels or environmental spending. Similar to the eastern–western divide, model cities

that are key cities scored signifi cantly better than other key cities on six of the eight indicators, resulting in a



signifi cantly higher mean EPI (Table 6). No difference was found in annual NO2 level or environmental spending.

The key cities have higher environmental spending than the national average of 1.4 percent. The means were 2.29

percent for eastern cities, 2.27 percent for western cities, 2.31 percent for model cities and 2.27 percent for other

cities. The high percentages indicate that China’s environmental spending has been mainly spent on large cities.

The top ten cities in environmental spending include four eastern cities but only one model city, the highest being

Shizhuishan in Ningxia (Table 7). No eastern or model cities are in the bottom ten cities in environmental spend-

ing, with the lowest being 0.88 percent in Xiangtan, Hunan. Eastern or model cities were all doing better than

the bottom ten cities. Of the 113 cities, 31, most of which are in western China, had an environmental spending

below two percent.

Correlation analyses showed that environmental spending is not signifi cantly related to any of the other seven

indicators, except for a positive correlation with SO2 levels. This probably refl ects the fact that the higher the level

of SO2 is, the more environmental spending a place needs to deal with it. However, the spending is not high

enough to control SO2 levels. An interesting question emerges: if they do not have a higher environmental spend-

ing, what makes model cities different from other cities? Some clues to the question were derived by using Jiangsu

Figure 1. China’s administrative regions, model cities and worst (most polluted) cities

8 L. Liu


and Shandong as case studies. Table 8 compares the model cities with other areas in the two provinces, based on

data derived from China’s 2000 county population census. Model cities tended to be more urbanized, with lower

crude birth rate and total fertility rate. They also had higher percent of working-age population and literacy rate.

What stood out the most was their GDP per capita. It was rich cities that tended to become model cities. However,

there are many exceptions. At the national level, China’s most developed large cities, such as Beijing, Shanghai

and Guangzhou, seem to have been slow, while some of China’s poorer large provincial capitals, such as Chengdu,

Changchun and Shenyang, are model cities already.

Jiangsu provides additional clues on what life is like in model cities (Table 9). As wealthier cities, model cities

consume more in terms of automobile and electricity consumption, which causes more pollution and environ-

mental stress. They appear to spend more money on pollution control, but actually less in terms of percent spend-

ing per GDP (Table 9), which is a more accurate measurement of environmental spending. They seem to pollute

more but spend less to clean up. Their education and health spending was also lower than that in other cities and

counties. Further research is needed to fi nd clear answers.

Figure 2. Environmental performance index of China’s 113 key cities, 2004–2005



Province City EPI

Category 1Hainan Haikou 70.95Guangxi Beihai 69.03Guangxi Guilin 65.9Guangdong Zhuhai 62.52Xinjiang Kelamayi 61.04Anhui Hefei 60.57Zhejiang Shaoxing 59.98Sichuan Jinyang 59.82Shandong Qingdao 59.06Hebei Qinhuangdao 59Zhejiang Huzhou 58.97Shandong Rizhao 58.69Jiangsu Suzhou 58.54Jiangsu Nantong 58.12Fujian Fuzhou 58.02

Category 2Guangdong Zhanjiang 57.96Jiangsu Lianyungang 57.79Ningxia Shizhuishan 57.79Guangdong Shenzhen 57.56Fujian Xiamen 57.25Jiangsu Wuxi 57.24Shandong Tai’an 56.77Hebei Tangshan 56.62Liaoning Dalain 56.51Jiangsu Changzhou 56.43Jiangsu Yangzhou 56.33Liaoning Shenyang 56.32Fujian Quanzhou 56.13

Category 3Sichuan Chengdu 55.98Jiangsu Zhenjiang 55.83Guangdong Shantou 55.76Jiangsu Nanjing 55.69Jiangsu Xuzhou 55.56Shandong Weifang 55.51Guangdong Guangzhou 55.18Yunnan Kunming 55.07Shandong Jinan 54.71Zhejiang Ningbo 54.22Zhejiang Hangzhou 53.94Jiangxi Nanchang 53.58Hebei Baoding 53.46Shanxi Changzhi 53.25

Table 3. Key cities rated in categories 1–4 by EPI scores, 2004–2005

10 L. Liu


Theoretical Implications

Conventional wisdom following the EKC believes that more developed places tend to have higher environmental

spending, because they have higher demand for environmental quality and the resources to meet the demand.

Environmental spending is an indicator of government effort in environmental protection. It is an important

component of environmental governance. It was a surprise that no difference in environmental spending was

found between eastern and western cities, or between model cities and other cities. More developed cities in China

spend more money, but not a higher percentage of their GDP, on environmental protection. If model cities or

cities in eastern China do not spend more of their GDP on the environment, why are they rated better by SEPA

or perform better than other cities in environmental protection? A preliminary answer to this question is that these

cities have better natural environmental conditions, which help them to meet pollution and environmental standard

easier than other cities. These cities tend to be located in areas with favorable climate (precipitation, wind, tem-

perature conditions), which helps with air quality and vegetation cover. Topography and terrain features may also

offer some indications. Economic structure may be another factor that helps explain why cities such as Linfen in

Shanxi have been the most polluted, where coal production and consumption is important to the economy.

Places with unfavorable environmental conditions have to spend more money than places with favorable condi-

tions. Much money was spent on planting and replanting trees in some arid areas in western China because arid

conditions make it diffi cult for trees to survive. Humid areas do not have this problem. Precipitation and wind

conditions in most areas in eastern China help reduce the level of concentration of PM10, SO2 and NO2. Model

cities tend to be in places with favorable environments. They tend to be more effective in environmental protection

while environmental spending is at the same level as other cities. In another word, it costs less for them to main-

tain the same or better environmental conditions. Environmentally handicapped cities cannot compete. It costs

them more to achieve the same conditions and they are poor.

Category 4Anhui Ma’anshan 52.36Guangxi Nanning 52.02Zhejiang Wenzhou 51.85Shandong Yantai 51.67Shandong Zibo 51.63Henan Zhengzhou 51.5Shandong Jining 51.23Sichuan Deyang 50.52Tianjin Tianjin 50.49Chongqing Chongqing 50.18Hebei Shijiangzhuang 49.75Henan Sanmenxia 49.67Shaanxi Baoji 49.54Heilongjiang Mudanjiang 49.39Hubei Wuhan 49.36Beijing Beijing 49.14Henan Luoyang 49.13Inner Mongolia Baotou 48.97Shanxi Taiyuan 48.94Hebei Handan 48.84Inner Mongolia Huhhot 48.83Jilin Jilin 48.11

Table 3. ContinuedSource: Derived by author.



Province City EPI

Category 5Guizhou Guiyang 47.51Hubei Yichang 47.47Guizhou Zunyi 47.12Sichuan Luzhou 46.85Gansu Lanzhou 46.84Jilin Changchun 46.74Jiangxi Jiujiang 46.72Liaoning Anshan 46.69Hunan Yueyang 46.61Tibet Lasa 45.96Heilongjiang Qiqihar 45.77Qinghai Xining 45.6Shaanxi Xi’an 45.3Ningxia Yinchuan 44.97Sichuan Zigong 44.91Shandong Zaozhuang 44.65Henan Jiaozuo 44.55Hunan Changde 44.4Hunan Changsha 44.08

Category 6Hunan Zhuzhou 43.15Guangxi Liuzhou 42.75Henan Anyang 42.36Yunnan Yuxi 42.22Anhui Wuhu 42.13Shanghai Shanghai 41.86Guangdong Shaoguan 41.62Fujian Xianyang 40.94Xinjiang Wulumuqi 40.23Shanxi Yangquan 39.61Henan Kaifeng 39.52Henan Pingdingshan 38.17Sichuan Panzhihua 38.09Shanxi Linfen 37.94Shaanxi Tongchuan 37.02Shanxi Datong 36.09Liaoning Benxi 36.06Hubei Jingzhou 36.02Heilongjiang Harbin 35.38Liaoning Fushun 35.37

Category 7Hunan Xiangtan 34.66Inner Mongolia Chifeng 33.88Yunnan Qujing 33.03Shaanxi Yan’an 32.71Gansu Jinchang 31.64Sichuan Nanchong 30.89Sichuan Yibin 29.96Hunan Zhangjiajie 27.44Liaoning Jinzhou 23.66Shaanxi Weinan 22.11

Table 4. Key cities rated in categories 5–7 by EPI scores, 2004–2005Source: Derived by author.

12 L. Liu


Region Mean Minimum Maximum F Sig.

Annual PM10 (mg/m3) Eastern 0.097 0.029 0.280 26.066 0.000Western 0.122 0.059 0.276

Annual SO2 (mg/m3) Eastern 0.045 0.005 0.105 47.827 0.000Western 0.073 0.003 0.229

Annual NO2 (mg/m3) Eastern 0.036 0.004 0.073 0.591 0.443Western 0.035 0.011 0.068

% toxic waste treated Eastern 87.89 0.00 100.00 28.884 0.000Western 63.58 0.00 100.00

% sewage treated Eastern 51.76 0.00 85.85 4.006 0.047Western 45.04 0.00 100.00

% garbage treated Eastern 84.47 0.00 100.00 5.881 0.016Western 75.23 0.00 100.00

Green area (%) Eastern 39.60 28.34 50.55 84.102 0.000Western 33.37 15.55 43.58

Environmental spending (%) Eastern 2.29 1.64 3.29 0.032 0.858Western 2.27 0.88 8.89

Environmental performance index Eastern 53.85 24.12 74.03 31.071 0.000Western 44.51 22.41 62.65

Table 5. Comparing environmental performance between key cities in eastern (58) and western (55) China, 2004–2005Source: Derived by author from data by SEPA (2005, 2006b).

City Mean Minimum Maximum F Sig.

Annual PM10 (mg/m3) Model 0.086 0.029 0.137 37.438 0.000Others 0.119 0.041 0.280

Annual SO2 (mg/m3) Model 0.040 0.007 0.077 31.752 0.000Others 0.067 0.003 0.229

Annual NO2 (mg/m3) Model 0.038 0.013 0.073 3.049 0.082Others 0.034 0.004 0.071

% toxic waste treated Model 95.95 17.22 100.00 32.940 0.000Others 67.70 0.00 100.00

% sewage treated Model 63.93 14.12 91.50 41.265 0.000Others 42.04 0.00 100.00

% garbage treated Model 92.37 59.47 100.00 18.711 0.000Others 74.78 0.00 100.00

Green area (%) Model 39.86 33.99 50.55 32.600 0.000Others 35.18 15.55 47.00

Environmental spending (%) Model 2.31 1.64 3.09 0.154 0.695Others 2.27 0.88 8.89

Environmental performance index Model 57.95 48.02 73.73 52.140 0.000Others 45.61 22.41 74.03

Table 6. Comparing environmental performance between model cities (33) and other key cities (80) in China, 2004–2005Source: Derived by author from data by SEPA (2005, 2006b).



Jiangsu Shandong

Model cities Other cities Counties Model cities Other cities Counties

N 17 23 27 17 31 61GDP/capita (1000) 22.03 8.76 6.85 17.62 10.7 5.05 Ratio to counties 3.21 1.28 1.00 3.49 2.12 1.00Population (1000) 1,180 924 872 1,056 1,050 629.9 Ratio to counties 1.35 1.06 1.00 1.68 1.67 1.00Urban pop. (%) 71 40 23 58 50 18Pop. 15–64 (%) 75.94 71.31 68.05 73.63 71.93 69.06Pop. 65+ (%) 9.05 9.37 8.22 8.95 7.73 8.08CBR (‰) 7.02 7.82 8.91 9.23 10.53 11.71CDR (‰) 5.39 6.46 5.91 6.23 6.03 6.51TFR 0.83 1 1.13 1 1.13 1.27Illiteracy (%) 5.11 6.31 7.36 6.59 7.3 10.46 Male 2.02 2.58 3.57 3.05 3.45 5.69 Female 8.29 10.07 11.31 10.18 11.27 15.35

Table 8. Economic and demographic features of model cities and other areas in Jiangsu and Shandong, 2000Sources: Population data derived by author from data by All China Marketing Research Co. (2003). GDP data derived by author from data by NBS (2002, 2007).

Conventional wisdom claims that environmental spending is the key to environmental recovery. The World

Bank recommends that environmental spending be two percent of GDP to prevent environmental degradation

(Choe, 2006). Many policy makers regard the two percent as a magic number and believe that their environment

will be safe as long as they spend the two percent. That is certainly not true for many Chinese cities. Geography

matters here. Places do not have the same physical environment. Some are naturally less sustainable than others.

These places will have to put in much greater efforts in order to achieve similar results. Due to natural conditions,

governance and economic conditions, a sustainability divide may exist, which requires us to develop new concepts

and theories to understand sustainability.

Province Top 10 cities % Province Bottom 10 cities %

1 Ningxia Shizhuishan 6.03 Hubei Jingzhou 1.01 2 Gansu Jinchang 5.02 Gansu Lanzhou 1.4 3 Shanxi Yangquan 4.3 Shaanxi Weinan 1.41 4 Inner Mongolia Baotou 3.64 Hunan Xiangtan 1.47 5 Beijing Beijing 3.29 Sichuan Zigong 1.51 6 Shanxi Changzhi 3.19 Shaanxi Yan’an 1.54 7 Tianjin Tianjin 3.09 Sichuan Nanchong 1.57 8 Shanxi Taiyuan 3.09 Sichuan Deyang 1.57 9 Shanghai Shanghai 3.02 Henan Pingdingshan 1.5910 Guangdong Shaoguan 3 Henan Kaifeng 1.67

Table 7. Top and bottom ten cities in environmental spending, 2004–2005Eastern provinces and model cities are in bold.Source: Derived by author from data by SEPA (2005, 2006c).

14 L. Liu


Policy Implications

Specifi c policy implications may be summarized as follows. First, the model cities should not be used to support

the ‘grow fi rst and clean up later’ approach. It is true that they have done a lot in environmental protection while

keeping high GDP growth rate. For example, the Weihai Model Urban Agglomeration was able to grow its GDP

24-fold from 1987 to 2002 while protecting the environment (Zhao and He, 2002). All four eco-cities in Jiangsu

are rich rapidly growing economies. Government offi cials use the eco-cities and model cities as proof that rapid

economic growth and environmental improvement can be achieved at the same time (SEPA, 2006d). This becomes

problematic when government offi cials use the ‘proof’ to support the ‘grow fi rst and clean up later’ approach, while

local sustainability and environmental performance have little relevance to the appraisal systems of these govern-

ments (Chung and Lo, 2007).

Second, it is questionable how sustainable the model cities are. According to Information Offi ce of China’s State

Council (IOCSC) (2006), the model cities have at least 292 days a year (80 percent of the year) when air quality

is at or above Grade II, over 70 percent sewage treated, over 80 percent household garbage treated and over 35

percent green cover. This means that the model cities are close to but not quite meeting model city standards

(Table 2). Besides, the absolute amount of untreated sewage and garbage may have increased in many cities, due

to increase in sewage and garbage generated. IOCSC (2006) claims that ‘azure sky, blue water, green land, tran-

quility, and harmony’ have become prominent features of these model cities. This is not true at all according to

my fi eld experiences. Except for Dalian, air quality was very bad in the 20 model cities I visited, most of which

were along the eastern coast. There was no apparent improvement in the cities I revisited between the years,

Model cities Other cities Counties

N 17 25 23Average population (million) 1.34 1.04 1.01Average GDP (billion yuan) 53.2 14.53 7.07GDP per capita (1000 yuan) 39.6 14.02 7.03Service value/GDP (%) 37.95 35.09 30.8Industrial value/GDP (%) 52.91 43.19 33.71Pollution control spending (billion yuan) 0.43 0.14 0.07Pollution control spending/GDP (%) 0.81 0.96 0.93Industrial solid waste recycled or reused (%) 96 97 97Land area (km2) 25730 37793 39347% of total land area 25.01 36.74 38.25Population density* (persons/km2) 905 718 562Persons per civilian-use automobile* 17.30 60.87 127.21Persons per private automobile* 30.42 122.12 222.21Post and telecommunication sales per capita (Yuan)* 1379 679 211Persons per stationary telephone* 1.55 2.73 4.17Persons per mobile telephone* 1.29 4.05 7.79Persons per Internet subscriber* 9.47 28.33 107.07Per capita electricity consumption* (billion W) 63.61 16.43 6.34Consumer products sold per capita* (billion yuan) 153.32 55.12 28.66Per capita social security spending (yuan)* 149 45 26Per capita education and health spending (yuan)* 704 320 235Social security spending/GDP (%)* 0.29 0.27 0.32Education and health spending/GDP (%)* 1.39 1.88 2.83

Table 9. Environmental, social and economic features in model cities and other areas in Jiangsu, 2002–2005* 2005 data.Sources: Derived by author from data by NBS (2007).



Shanghai, Nanjing, Beijing, Changchun, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Suzhou and Xi’an. There was no ‘azure sky,

blue water, tranquility, or harmony’, though many cities did have signifi cant green areas. Almost all people I

interviewed in the model cities believed that pollution was really bad in their cities, though they were divided in

answering whether the condition had become better or worse. Only a minority was sure that conditions had

improved.

Third, ‘pollution outsourcing’ from model cities to other cities requires close attention. Since governments of

coastal cities have taken measures to reduce pollution, some heavy polluting industries have moved from coastal

to inland cities (China Daily, 2006), further widening the sustainability divide. Environmental degradation threat-

ens China’s social stability and long-term economic growth. Governmental policies should ensure sustainable

development in all parts of China and avoid sustainability in one region at the expense of another. Policies should

focus on sustainability rather than economic growth. The road of ‘grow fi rst and clean up later’ will likely be ‘grow

fi rst and collapse later’ for cities in western China, where fragile environmental conditions are deteriorating.

Last, model cities should not be required to have above national average GDP and GDP growth rates, which has

been 10 percent a year and is impossible for many cities to achieve without following the ‘grow fi rst and clean up

later’ approach. The GDP requirements may also be the reason that model cities tend to be large cities, provincial

capitals and cities on the eastern coast, where economic growth has been fastest. The model cities should be models

of environmental protection instead of economic growth. Model city criteria should be revised to lower or drop

the GDP requirements.

Conclusions

China has taken important measures to deal with urban environmental problems. Many model cities and urban

agglomerations have achieved much in environmental protection. However, spatial analyses on model cities and

key cities demonstrate a clear regional divide in environmental performance. Model cities tend to concentrate and

cluster along China’s eastern coast. Western China was slow in developing model cities. All China’s eco-cities and

model urban agglomerations are clustered along the eastern coast. By contrast, China’s most polluted cities tend

to be in western China. All seven most polluted cities in 2005 were in western China. Eastern cities scored sig-

nifi cantly better than western cities on six of the eight indicators of environmental performance, except for NO2

levels and environmental spending. The same contrast exists between key model cities and other key cities.

Environmental spending is not signifi cantly related to any of the other seven indicators, except for a positive

correlation with SO2 levels. Model cities in Jiangsu and Shandong tended to have the highest level of GDP per

capita in the province. As wealthier cities, model cities consume more in terms of automobile and electricity con-

sumption, causing more pollution and environmental stress. These fi ndings imply that conventional wisdom

following the EKC may need to be expanded to consider factors beyond economic growth. Model cities typically

have better natural environmental conditions, which help them to meet pollution and environmental standard

more easily than other cities. These cities tend to be located in areas with favorable environmental conditions.

Geography matters, as physical environment varies from place to place. Some cities are naturally less sustainable

than others. They can not afford the ‘grow fi rst and clean up later’ approach that other cities have taken.

China should not use the model cities to promote its ideas of achieving rapid economic growth along with

environmental improvement, as this is unrealistic for places with fragile environmental conditions. Besides, it is

questionable whether the model cities are really as green as they claim to be, and their sustainability remains to

be tested. Furthermore, some heavy polluting industries have moved from coastal to inland cities, further widen-

ing the sustainability divide. Governmental policies should ensure sustainable development in all parts of China

and avoid sustainability in one region at the expense of another. Policies should focus on environmental sustain-

ability rather than economic growth. The model cities should be accredited according to their environmental

performance, regardless of their GDP levels or growth rates.

16 L. Liu


Acknowledgement

This research was funded by two University Research Program Grants, fi ve Professional Development Assistance Grants and Two College Research and Creative Assistance Awards from the University of Central Missouri in 2002–2007. The funding enabled me to collect reliable data through fi eld surveys and interviews. I am especially grateful to offi cials and researchers at various environmental organizations in China for assistance with the data collection; to Sustainable Development Editors Richard Welford and Scott Lam and other reviewers for thoughtful comments, encouragement and guidance and to Zane Price for cartographic assistance.

References

Beckerman W. 1992. Economic growth and the environment. World Development 20: 481–496.

Bithas KP, Christofakis M. 2006. Environmentally sustainable cities. Critical review and operational conditions. Sustainable Development 14(3):

177–189.

Burstrom F, Korhonen J. 2001. Municipalities and industrial ecology: reconsidering municipal environmental management. Sustainable Devel-opment 9(1): 36–46.

Cao G, Wang F, Zhang Z, Zou C. 2006. Relationship between pollution and economic growth in China. China Population, Resources and Development 16(1): 25–29.

Chan WY, Ma SY. 2004. Heritage preservation and sustainability of China’s development. Sustainable Development 12(1): 15–31.

Chen H, Liu K. 2004. Jingji zengzhang yu huangjing zhiliang: Guanyu huanjing Kuzinieci quxian de jingyan fenxi [Economic growth and

environmental quality: an empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve]. Fudan Journal (Social Science Edition) 2004(3): 87–

94.

Chen M, Wang RS, Zhang LJ, Xu CG. 2006. Temporal and spatial assessment of natural resource use in China using ecological footprint

method. International Journal for Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13(4): 255–268.

Chimeli AB. Braden JB. 2002. The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Optimal Growth, working paper, Columbia University. http://iri.columbia.

edu/~chimeli/wpps/envdynpost.pdf [22 January 2008].

China Daily. 2006. Inland areas now major polluters. 27 September: 2.

ChinaNet. 2003. China’s fi rst environmental-protection model urban agglomeration established by the end of 2002 on Jiaodong Peninsula.

http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/huanjing/255511.ht [22 January 2008].

Choe J. 2006. Costly growth: China’s environmental woes. Harvard International Review 27(4). http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1471 [22 January

2008].

Chung SS, Lo CWH. 2007. The roles of grassroots local government in sustainable waste management in China. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14(2): 133–144.

Cole MA. 1999. Limits to growth, sustainable development and environmental Kuznets curves: an examination of the environmental impact

of economic growth. Sustainable Development 7(2): 87–97.

Dasgupta S, Hamilton K, Pandey D, Wheeler D. 2006. Environment during growth: Accounting for governance and vulnerability. World Development 34(9): 1597–1611.

Du B, Zhang KM, Song GJ, Wen ZG. 2006. Methodology for an urban ecological footprint to evaluate sustainable development in China.

International Journal for Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13(4): 245–254.

Ezzati M, Singer BH, Kammen DM. 2001. Towards an integrated framework for development and environment policy: the dynamics of

environmental Kuznets curves. World Development 29(8): 1421–1434.

Fan J. 2002. Kechixu Fazhanxia de Zuiyou Jingji Zengzhang [Optimal Economic Growth under Sustainable Development]. Beijing: Jingji Guanli

Chubanshe.

Fincher LH. 2006. 16 of World’s 20 Most-Polluted Cities in China. Worldwatch Institute: Washington, DC. http://www.voanews.com/english/

archive/2006-06/2006-06-28-voa36.cfm?CFID=25524690&CFTOKEN=37790368 [22 January 2008].

Fonkych K, Lempert R. 2005. Assessment of environmental Kuznets curves and socioeconomic drivers in IPCC’s SRES scenarios. Journal of Environment and Development 14(1): 27–47.

Geng Y, Haight M, Zhu QH. 2007. Empirical analysis of eco-industrial development in China. Sustainable Development 15(2): 121–

133.

Grossman GM, Krueger AB. 1993. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. In The US Mexico Free Trade Agreement, Garber P (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press; 165–177.

Grossman GM, Krueger AB. 1995. Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 353–377.

Hu JL. 2006. Effi cient air pollution abatement for regions in China. International Journal for Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13(4):

327–340.

Imura H, Bai XM. 2001. Towards sustainable urban water resource management: a case study in Tianjin, China. Sustainable Development 9(1):

24–35.

Information Offi ce of China’s State Council (IOCSC). 2006. Environmental Protection in China (1996–2005). http://news.xinhuanet.com/

english/2006-06/05/content_4647221_2.htm [22 January 2008].



International Energy Agency (IEA). 2006. The World Energy Outlook 2006. http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_

ID=187 [22 January 2008].

Jiang GM, Gao JX. 2007. The terrible cost of China’s growth (part two). China Dialogue. http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/

en/686-The-terrible-cost-of-China-s-growth-part-two- [22 January 2008].

Kuznets S. 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review 45: 1–28.

Li B, Zhou W. 2005. Suzhou & Changzhou become environmental-protection Model Urban Agglomerations. Sunan Science and Technology Development 2005: 6. http://scholar.ilib.cn/Abstract.aspx?A=snkjkf200506004 [22 January 2008].

Li L. 2006. China’s ‘Green’ Investment to Outpace GDP Growth. World Watch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4705 [22 January

2008].

Liu L. 2008 (in press). Sustainability Efforts in China: Refl ections on the Environmental Kuznets Curve through a Locational Evaluation of

‘Eco-Communities’. The Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98(3).

Luken RA, Hesp P. 2007. The contribution of six developing countries’ industry to sustainable development. Sustainable Development 15(4):

242–253.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS). 2002. Statistical Yearbook of Shandong (electronic edition). China Statistics Press: Beijing.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS). 2006. China Statistical Yearbook 2006. China Statistics Press: Beijing.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS). 2007. Statistical Yearbook of Jiangsu 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 (electronic edition). China

Statistics Press: Beijing.

OECD. 2006. OECD Environmental Performance Review of China: Conclusions and Suggestions. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/23/37657409.

pdf [17 January 2008].

Peng S, Bao Q. 2006. Jingji zengzhang yu huanjing wuran – huanjing Kuzinieci quxian jiashuo de zhongguo jianyan [Economic growth and

environmental pollution: an empirical test for the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in China]. Caijing Wenti Yanjiu (Research on Financial and Economic Issues) 2006(8): 3–17.

Platt KH. 2007. Chinese air pollution deadliest in world, report says. National Geographic News 9 July. http://news.national geographic.com/

news/2007/07/070709-China-pollution.html [3 March 2008].

Qu GP. 2006. Cong ‘Huanjing Kuzinieci Quxian’ Shuo Qi – ‘Beijing Daxue Zhongguo Qingnian Huanbao Dahui’ Shang de Jianghua [State from the Environmental Cuznets curve. Speech at Beijing University China Youth Environmental Protection Conference]. Environmental Management

College of China.

Qu JY, Sun X. 2004. Zhujiang Delta Environmental-Protection Model Urban Agglomeration to be Achieved in Six Years. Guangzhou Environment

Protection Bureau. http://www.gzepb.gov.cn/yhxw/t20041110_7264.htm [22 January 2008].

Roberts JT, Grimes PE. 1997. Carbon intensity and economic development 1962–91: a brief exploration of the environmental Kuznets curve.

World Development 25: 191–198.

Shafi k N. 1994. Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxford Economic Papers 46: 757–

773.

Shao M, Tang XY, Zhang YH, Lia WJ. 2006. City clusters in China: air and surface water pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(7): 353–361.

State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA). 2003. Guanyu Jixu Shishi Huanjing Baohu Zhongdian Chengshi Huanjing Gongnengqu Dabiao Gongzuo Jibao Zhidode Tongzhi [Circular on Key Cities for Environmental Protection to Continue to Be Required to Submit Quarterly Environmental Performance Reports], SEPA Offi ce Document (2003) 54. SEPA. http://www.sepa.gov.cn/info/gw/huanban/200306/

t20030623_85613.htm [22 January 2008].

State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA). 2004. Guanyu Jinyibu Jiaqiang Daqi Wuran Fangzhi Gaishan Chengshi Huan-jing Kongqi Zhiliangde Tongzhi [Circular on Enforcing Air Pollution Control and Improving Air Quality], SEPA Offi ce Document (2004) 544.

SEPA. http://sjc.zhb.gov.cn/info/gw/bgth/200409/t20040902_61480.htm [22 January 2008].

State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA). 2005. 2004 Quanguo Chengshi Huanjing Guanli yu Zonghe Zhengzhi Niandu Baogao [2004 China Urban Environmental Management and Integrated Control Annual Report]. http://www.sepa.gov.cn/cont/city/

csgl/200506/t20050602_67177.htm [22 January 2008].

State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA). 2006a. Quanguo Shengtai Baohu Shiyi Wu Guihua [National Ecological Protec-tion 11th Five-Year Plan]. SEPA. http://www.zhb.gov.cn/natu/stbh/js/200610/t20061018_94783.htm [22 January 2008].

State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA). 2006b. 2005 Quanguo Chengshi Huanjing Guanli yu Zonghe Zhengzhi Niandu Baogao [2005 China Urban Environmental Management and Integrated Control Annual Report]. http://www.zhb.gov.cn/cont/city/

csgl/200609/P020061017576778572274.doc [22 January 2008].

State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA). 2006c. ‘Shiyiwu’ Guojia Huanjing Baohu Mofan Chengshi Kaohe Zhibiao Ji Shishi Xize (‘Eleventh Five-Year’ State Environmental-Protection Model City Assessment Standards and Procedures. 27 March. www.sepb.gov.

cn/app/editor/fi lemanager/fi le/cmfj02.doc [5 March 2008].State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA). 2006d. Jiangsu government awards fi rst eco-cities. Construction of Eco-

Zone, and Eco-Province (City, County) News 5(27). http://www.zhb.gov.cn/natu/stxhq/scgs/200701/t20070119_99883.htm [22 January

2008].

State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA). 2008a. Guojia Huanjing Baohu Mofan Chengshi [State Environmental-Protection Model Cities]. SEPA. http://www.zhb.gov.cn/cont/mhcity [22 January 2008].

Time. 2007. Environment: the world’s most polluted places. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1661031,00.html [22 January

2008].

World Bank. 1992. World Development Report 1992: Development and Environment. Oxford University Press: New York.

18 L. Liu


Wu B, Flynn A. 1995. Sustainable development in China: seeking a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. Sustain-able Development 3(1): 1–8.

Yang K, Ye M, Xu Q. 2003. Environmental Kuznets characteristics of municipal solid waste growth in Shanghai city. Geographical Research

22(1): 60–65.

Zhao YX, He Y. 2002. Weihai’s win–win path. People’s Daily. 19 November. http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/huanjing/234918.htm [January

2008].

Documents

Urban environmental performance in China: a sustainability divide?