Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article titled "An Effectiveness-and Efficiency-Based Improved Approach for Measuring Ecological Well-Being Performance in China" presents a novel approach to evaluating the ecological well-being performance (EWP) in China. The authors argue that previous studies have focused on the efficiency of EWP without considering its effectiveness, which may mislead efforts to improve it. Therefore, they propose a bi-dimensional evaluation framework that considers both effectiveness and efficiency.

The article provides a comprehensive review of the challenges posed by urbanization in China and the importance of striking a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. It also highlights the limitations of traditional GDP benefits and emphasizes the need for evaluating human well-being as an essential component of sustainable development.

The proposed evaluation framework includes two indicators: the Ecological Consumption Index (ECI) as an input factor and the Human Development Index (HDI) as an output factor. The authors use various methods such as entropy method, line-weighted method, four-quadrant evaluation framework, Super SBM model, and DEA moving split-windows analysis method to calculate EWP effectiveness and efficiency.

The case study conducted using data from 30 provinces in China for the period 1997-2019 reveals that while ECI and HDI increased during this period, EWP efficiency decreased with fluctuations. Provinces in southern China and Chongqing demonstrated good performance in HDI but had low levels of ECI. Most developed regions such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong did not present the best EWPs.

While the article presents a comprehensive approach to evaluating EWP in China, it has some potential biases. Firstly, it focuses only on China's urbanization process without considering rural areas' impact on ecological well-being performance. Secondly, it assumes that residential welfare is an appropriate output factor for measuring EWP without considering other factors such as biodiversity conservation or ecosystem services provision. Thirdly, it does not explore counterarguments against its proposed approach or consider alternative evaluation frameworks.

Moreover, while the article acknowledges that ecological and environmental performance in China is poor according to previous studies such as World's Environmental Performance Index (EPI), it does not provide evidence to support its claim that improving EWP can break through these limitations or promote residential happiness and ecological protection.

In conclusion, while the article presents a novel approach to evaluating EWP in China from both effectiveness and efficiency perspectives, it has some potential biases and lacks evidence to support some claims made. Further research is needed to explore alternative evaluation frameworks that consider other factors besides residential welfare output or include rural areas' impact on ecological well-being performance.