中国城市环境—社会—治理评价与时空演化

Evaluation and Spatial-Temporal Evolution of Urban EnvironmentSociety-Governance in China

中文关键词:  城市  ESG指数  可持续发展  环境  社会  治理

英文关键词:city  ESG index  sustainable development  environment  society  governance

中文摘要:

      面对日渐严峻的环境挑战与社会治理需求，环境、社会和治理（ESG）理念倡导企业在追求经济效益的同时，应承担起对生态环境、社会发展的责任，并提高自身管理绩效。本文将ESG理念引入城市发展，综合运用熵权法结合逼近理想解排序法（Entropy Weight-Technique forOrder Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution，熵权TOPSIS）与主成分分析构建城市ESG评价体系，对我国2011—2022年282个城市的ESG发展水平进行评估。研究发现：①我国城市ESG指数呈稳步上升态势，环境治理成效显著，但社会与治理维度仍存在较大提升空间；②ESG等级呈金字塔结构分布且具有黏滞性，低等级城市较多，高等级城市较少，部分中高等级城市面临降级风险，而低等级城市则存在跃迁障碍，区域间差距虽有所收敛但仍需政策干预；③空间分异特征显著，东部沿海城市依托经济基础与治理优势形成领先集群，中西部和东北地区潜力初现但整体滞后；④驱动机制呈现多维异质性：区域层面，东部城市依赖于产业升级与环境政策协同，中部以制度执行与教育资源为核心驱动力，西部则更依赖政策干预与基础能力支撑；规模层面，超大城市面临发展瓶颈，亟须治理创新突破常规路径依赖；特大城市受历史惯性与环境规制显著影响，应注重政策优化与协同治理；Ⅰ型大城市对外开放的驱动效应突出，需加强国际资源对接与绿色治理；Ⅱ型大城市呈现教育驱动的显著特征，应重点提升人力资源与治理软实力；中小城市在治理能力和资源配置方面存在明显短板，更需政策扶持与制度激励。未来应加强制度创新、资源协同与能力建设，从而推动城市ESG水平从“外源驱动”向“内生增长”转型，实现新型城镇化战略下的高质量、可持续发展。

英文摘要:

      In response to increasing environmental and social challenges, the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework underscores the necessity for cities―central to development―to incorporate sustainability, equity, and governance alongside economic growth. This study develops a city-level ESG evaluation system employing entropy-weighted TOPSIS and principal component analysis, evaluating ESG performance across 282 Chinese cities from 2011 to 2022. The findings reveal that:① A consistent increase in urban ESG indices, with significant improvements in environmental governance, although social and institutional dimensions remain underdeveloped; ② ESG performance exhibits a pyramid-shaped distribution with sticky characteristics: a large number of low-performing cities and few high-performing ones. Some mid-to-high-tier cities face downgrade risks, while low-tier cities encounter upward mobility barriers. Although inter-regional disparities have narrowed, targeted policy interventions are still required;③ Spatial heterogeneity is prominent: Eastern coastal cities, leveraging economic foundations and governance strengths, form leading clusters. Central-western and northeastern regions show initial signs of potential but lag overall;④ Driving mechanisms display multidimensional heterogeneity. In regional dimension: Eastern cities rely on industrial upgrading and synergy of environmental policies; central regions prioritize institutional implementation and educational resources; western regions depend more on policy interventions and foundational capacity building. In city-size dimension: Megacities face developmental bottlenecks, urgently requiring governance innovation to break conventional path dependence; large cities are significantly influenced by historical inertia and environmental regulations, necessitating policy optimization and collaborative governance; Type I megacities are prominently driven by external openness, highlighting the need to enhance international resource integration and green governance. Type II megacities exhibit an education-driven pattern, suggesting a focus on strengthening human capital and governance capacity; small and medium-sized cities exhibit gaps in governance capacity and resource allocation, demanding stronger policy support and institutional incentives. In the future, institutional innovation, resource synergy, and capacity building should be strengthened to drive the transformation of urban ESG performance from “externally driven” to “endogenously generated growth,” thereby achieving high-quality and sustainable development under the new urbanization strategy.