4.2. Analysis of the Production Efficiency of Various Factors
4.2.1. Labor Efficiency
From 2010 to 2017 (see
Figure 2), the average labor efficiency in China has shown an upward trend, from 0.6129 to 0.6988, and the allocation of labor resources has been continuously optimized. The average labor efficiency of the high-income groups in each year is higher than the national average labor efficiency, while the average labor efficiencies of the upper-middle-income groups are lower than the national average labor efficiency.
The labor efficiency of the provinces of China’s high-income groups has shown an increasing trend, from 0.7410 in 2010 to 0.833 in 2017. Among them, the labor efficiencies of Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai are all 1 in the 8 years, thus realizing effective allocation of labor resources. The labor efficiencies of Inner Mongolia and Fujian have declined slightly, while the labor efficiencies of nine provinces, including Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shandong, Hubei, Guangdong, Chongqing, and Shaanxi, show an upward trend.
The labor efficiencies of China’s upper-middle-income groups have also shown an increasing trend, from 0.5008 in 2010 to 0.5812 in 2017. Among them, Hainan has a labor efficiency of 1 in all 8 years, thus achieving effective allocation of labor resources. The labor efficiencies of five provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang have declined slightly, and the labor efficiencies of nine provinces including Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, and Gansu have shown an upward trend.
4.2.2. Energy Consumption Efficiency
From 2010 to 2017 (see
Figure 3), China’s average energy consumption efficiency presents a downward trend, from 0.7727 to 0.6957. The average energy consumption efficiency of the high-income groups in each year is higher than the national average energy consumption efficiency. However, the average energy consumption efficiencies of the upper-middle-income groups are lower than the national average energy consumption efficiency.
The energy consumption efficiencies of provinces in China’s high-income groups have shown a downward trend, from 0.8829 in 2010 to 0.8094 in 2017. Among them, the energy consumption efficiencies of Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai are 1 in all 8 years, thus realizing the effective use of energy. The energy consumption efficiencies of eight provinces including Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong, and Shaanxi have declined slightly, while the energy consumption efficiencies of three provinces including Hubei, Guangdong, and Chongqing have an upward trend.
The energy consumption efficiencies of provinces in China’s upper-middle-income groups have also shown a downward trend, from 0.6763 in 2010 to 0.5962 in 2017. Among them, Hunan and Hainan both have energy consumption efficiency of 1 in all 8 years, thus hitting effective use of energy. The energy efficiencies of 13 provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Guangxi, Yunnan, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang have declined, while the energy consumption efficiencies of two provinces including Sichuan and Guizhou have an upward trend.
4.2.3. Water Efficiency
From 2010 to 2017 (see
Figure 4), China’s average water use efficiency has shown an upward trend, rising from 0.4982 to 0.5865. The average water efficiency of the high-income groups in each year is higher than the national average water efficiency. However, the average water efficiencies of the middle- and high-income groups are lower than the national average.
The water use efficiencies of provinces in China’s high-income groups have shown an upward trend, from 0.6232 in 2010 to 0.7021 in 2017. Among them, Beijing and Tianjin have water use efficiency of 1 in all 8 years, realizing effective use of water resources. The water use efficiencies of 6 provinces including Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Jiangsu, Fujian, Shandong, and Hubei have declined slightly, while the water use efficiencies of five provinces including Liaoning, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Chongqing, and Shaanxi have illustrated an upward trend.
The water use efficiencies of provinces in China’s upper-middle-income groups have also shown an upward trend, from 0.3887 in 2010 to 0.4853 in 2017. Among them, Hainan has water use efficiency of 1 for all 8 years, thus achieving the effective use of water resources. The water use efficiencies of six provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Anhui, Henan, Ningxia, and Xinjiang have declined, while the water use efficiencies of nine provinces including Heilongjiang, Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Gansu, and Qinghai have shown an upward trend.
4.2.4. Investment Efficiency of Pollution Control
From 2010 to 2017 (see
Figure 5), the average investment efficiency of China’s industrial pollution control has shown an upward trend, rising from 0.6962 to 0.8795. The average investment efficiency of industrial pollution control for the high-income groups is higher than the average pollution control investment efficiency of the middle- and high-income groups. Moreover, the investment efficiencies of industrial pollution control for the middle-high-income groups are lower than the national average pollution control investment efficiency.
The investment efficiencies of industrial pollution control in the provinces of China’s high-income groups have shown an upward trend, from 0.6979 in 2010 to 0.8698 in 2017. Among them, the investment efficiencies of industrial pollution control in Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai are 1 in all 8 years, realizing the effective allocation of industrial pollution control investment. The investment efficiencies of industrial pollution control in Inner Mongolia and Shandong declined slightly, while the investment efficiencies of industrial pollution control in eight places including Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Hubei, Guangdong, and Chongqing have an upward trend.
The investment efficiencies of industrial pollution control in China’s upper-middle-income groups have also shown an upward trend, from 0.6947 in 2010 to 0.7538 in 2017. Among them, the investment efficiency of Hainan’s industrial pollution control in all 8 years is 1, as it has been able to effectively realize pollution control. The investment efficiencies of industrial pollution control in seven provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Anhui, Henan, Ningxia, and Xinjiang have declined, while investment in industrial pollution control in eight provinces including Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Gansu, and Qinghai Efficiency is on the rise.
4.2.5. GDP Efficiency
From 2010 to 2017 (see
Figure 6), China’s GDP efficiency average has shown an upward trend, rising from 0.8700 to 0.9149. The average GDP efficiency of the high-income group in each year is higher than the average GDP efficiency of the national and upper-middle-income groups. Contrarily, the GDP efficiency of the upper-middle-income group is lower than the national average GDP efficiency.
The GDP efficiencies of provinces in China’s high-income groups have shown an upward trend, rising from 0.9127 in 2010 to 0.9220 in 2017. Among them, the GDP efficiencies of Beijing, Tianjin, and Fujian are 1 in all 8 years, achieving optimal output. The investment efficiencies of industrial pollution control in Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Zhejiang, Hubei, and Guangdong have declined slightly, while the GDP efficiencies in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Shandong, Chongqing, and Shaanxi have shown an upward trend.
The GDP efficiencies of provinces in China’s upper-middle-income groups have also shown an upward trend, rising from 0.8326 in 2010 to 0.9086 in 2017. Among them, GDP efficiencies of Hunan’s industrial pollution control in all 8 years is 1, thus effectively realizing optimal output. The GDP efficiencies of four provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Yunnan, and Gansu have declined. The GDP efficiencies of 11 provinces including Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Guangxi, Hainan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Qinghai, and Ningxia have shown an upward trend.
4.2.6. Wastewater Efficiency
From 2010 to 2017 (see
Figure 7), the average wastewater treatment efficiency in China has shown an upward trend, rising from 0.8139 to 0.8641. The average waste gas treatment efficiencies of the high-income groups are higher than the average wastewater treatment efficiencies of the middle- and high-income groups. Moreover, the wastewater treatment efficiencies of the upper-middle-income groups are all lower than the national average wastewater treatment efficiency.
The efficiencies of wastewater treatment in various provinces of China’s high-income groups have shown an upward trend, from 0.8712 in 2010 to 0.9011 in 2017. Among them, the wastewater treatment efficiencies of Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai are 1 in all 8 years, realizing effective wastewater treatment. The efficiencies of wastewater pollution treatment in four provinces including Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Shandong, and Shaanxi have declined slightly. Conversely, the efficiencies of wastewater pollution treatment in eight places including Jilin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Hubei, Guangdong, and Chongqing have shown an upward trend.
The efficiencies of wastewater treatment in various provinces in China’s upper-middle-income groups have also shown an upward trend, from 0.7638 in 2010 to 0.8316 in 2017. Among them, Hainan’s wastewater treatment efficiency is 1 in all 8 years, realizing effective waste water treatment. The efficiencies of wastewater pollution treatment in seven provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Henan, Gansu and Xinjiang have declined, while the efficiencies of wastewater treatment in eight provinces including Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Qinghai, and Ningxia have an increasing trend.
4.2.7. Waste Gas Efficiency
From 2010 to 2017 (see
Figure 8), the average value of China’s waste gas treatment efficiency has a downward trend, from 0.5014 to 0.4952. The average exhaust gas treatment efficiencies of the high-income groups are higher than the average exhaust gas treatment efficiencies of the upper-middle-income groups. Moreover, the exhaust gas treatment efficiencies of the upper-middle-income groups are all lower than the national average exhaust gas treatment efficiency.
The exhaust gas treatment efficiencies of various provinces in China’s high-income groups have shown an upward trend, from 0.6255 in 2010 to 0.6493 in 2017. Among them, the exhaust gas treatment efficiencies of Beijing, Tianjin, and Fujian are 1 in all 8 years, realizing effective exhaust gas treatment. Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Shandong, and other four provinces have a slight decline in their efficiency of waste gas pollution control, while the efficiencies of waste gas pollution control in six places including Zhejiang, Fujian, Hubei, Guangdong, Chongqing, and Shaanxi have shown an upward trend.
The efficiencies of waste gas treatment in China’s upper-middle-income groups have shown a downward trend, from 0.3928 in 2010 to 0.3604 to 2017. Among them, Hainan’s waste gas treatment efficiency is 1 for all 8 years, realizing effective waste gas treatment. The treatment efficiencies of waste gas pollution in seven provinces including Hebei, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Yunnan, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang have declined, while the treatment efficiencies of industrial waste gas in eight provinces including Shanxi, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, and Gansu have an upward trend.
4.2.8. Waste Solid Efficiency
From 2010 to 2017 (see
Figure 9), the average value of China’s solid waste treatment efficiency exhibits a downward trend, from 0.5014 to 0.3619. The average solid waste treatment efficiency of the high-income groups in each year is higher than the average solid waste treatment efficiency of the country and the upper-middle-income groups, and the solid waste treatment efficiencies of the middle- and high-income groups are all lower than the national average solid waste treatment efficiency.
The efficiencies of solid waste treatment in the provinces of China’s high-income groups have shown a downward trend, from 0.7198 in 2010 to 0.5167 in 2017. Among them, the efficiencies of solid waste treatment in Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai are 1 in all 8 years, realizing effective treatment of solid waste. The efficiencies of solid waste pollution control in nine provinces including Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong, Hubei, and Shaanxi show a downward trend, while the efficiencies of solid waste pollution control in Guangdong and Chongqing show an upward trend.
The efficiencies of solid waste treatment in various provinces in China’s upper-middle-income groups also show a downward trend, from 0.4475 in 2010 to 0.2264 to 2017. Among them, Hainan has achieved solid waste treatment efficiency of 1, which denotes effective treatment. With the exception of Hunan’s solid waste treatment efficiency showing an upward trend, other provinces and cities have shown a downward trend.
The above results show that after considering energy input and pollution control, in the environmental pollution control of China’s industrial sector, the level of sewage treatment is generally on the rise, and the high-income group is higher than the high-income group. This is in line with the existing research of Wang and Feng [
15]. The research conclusions of Song et al. [
16] are basically the same. The slight difference is that the research in this article found that the efficiency of waste gas treatment and solid waste treatment in China’s industrial sector showed a downward trend during 2010–2017, while Wang and Feng [
15] found that the governance levels of the two were not improved significantly during 2004–2015. The difference in the research results may lie in the selection of the research period, and the efficiency of the allocation of elements during the period has not yet appeared. Air pollution is one of the most concerning environmental pollution problems in Chinese society in recent years. During 2013–2017, only the central air pollution prevention and control special funds were allocated 5 billion yuan, 9.8 billion yuan, 10.6 billion yuan, 11.18 billion yuan and 16 billion yuan, respectively, showing an increasing trend year by year. At the same time, there are problems in air pollution prevention such as insufficient matching of fund use with key prevention and control tasks, and lagging progress in fund implementation.
4.3. Analysis of Meta Technical Efficiency and Group Technical Efficiency
We adopt the meta frontier method to construct the production frontier with the input-output data of all years of the decision-making units. The calculation results appear in
Table 3.
Under the meta frontier, the average environmental governance efficiency of China’s industrial sector from 2010 to 2017 is 0.7810, of which the average environmental governance efficiency of the high-income groups is 0.8728, and the average environmental governance efficiency of the same groups is 0.7006. We see that the overall efficiency of environmental governance in China’s industrial sector is relatively high, but there is still a gap between the efficiency of environmental governance in the upper-middle-income groups and high-income groups, which have not reached the national average. In the high-income group, the efficiencies of environmental governance in Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai from 2010 to 2017 are 1, realizing effective environmental governance. Provinces and cities showing a downward trend in environmental governance efficiency include Inner Mongolia, Zhejiang, Shandong, and Shaanxi, while provinces and cities showing an upward trend in environmental governance efficiency include Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangsu, Fujian, Hubei, Guangdong, and Chongqing. In the middle- and high-income groups, the environmental governance efficiency of Hainan Province is 1 from 2010 to 2017, thus achieving effective governance of environmental pollution. The provinces and cities showing a downward trend of environmental governance efficiency include Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Henan, Gansu, and Xinjiang, while the provinces and cities showing an upward trend of environmental governance efficiency include Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Qinghai, and Ningxia.
Under the group frontier, the environmental governance efficiencies of the high-income group and the upper-middle-income group are 0.8766 and 0.9863, respectively. Compared to the common frontier, efficiency performance has improved, especially the middle-high-income group as it is close to the effective state. This is because the DEA efficiency measurement method evaluates relative efficiency, and the improvement of GTE is the result of the convergence of the frontier boundaries within the group caused by the regrouping of decision-making units on the meta frontier. It is thus necessary to use the meta-frontier method to measure the efficiency of regional environmental governance.
In the high-income group, the efficiencies of environmental governance in Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai from 2010 to 2017 are 1, thus realizing effective governance of environmental pollution. Provinces and cities showing a downward trend in environmental governance efficiency include Inner Mongolia, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shandong, and Shaanxi, while those showing an upward trend in environmental governance efficiency include Liaoning, Jilin, Fujian, Hubei, Guangdong, and Chongqing. Among the upper-middle-income groups, 11 provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Hainan, Sichuan, Gansu, and Ningxia have achieved group efficiency and effectiveness. Guangxi shows an upward trend in environmental governance efficiency, while Yunnan and Xinjiang show a downward trend in environmental governance efficiency.
4.4. Analysis of the Technology Gap Ratio
Based on the calculations of MTE and GTE in various provinces and cities, this paper uses the technology gap ratio (TGR) to analyze the gap in environmental governance efficiency in various regions (see
Table 4). According to
Table 2 and
Table 3, the overall and regional findings of China’s environmental governance efficiency show that GTE is significantly higher than MTE. The average technology gap efficiency values of the high-income groups and upper-middle-income groups are 0.9951 and 0.7117, respectively, indicating that there is a gap between each region’s actual technology level and the potential best technology level, with 0.49% and 28.83% room for improvement, respectively. The actual technology level of the high-income group is closest to the potential best technology level, but there is still a gap between the high-income group and the potential best technology level.
Between 2010 and 2017, among the high-income groups the five provinces of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Shandong, and Guangdong have a technology gap ratio of 1, indicating that their actual technology level is in the leading position in China and has reached the potential best technology level. The other eight provinces in the high-income group, Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Hubei, Chongqing, and Shaanxi, all fluctuate within the range of [0.9, 1], indicating that they have higher levels of actual technology and are close to the potential best technology level in the country.
Among the middle and high-income groups, the technology gap ratio of Hainan is 1 from 2010 to 2017, indicating that it has achieved the potential best technology level in the country. For Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Henan, Gansu, Qinghai, and Xinjiang, their technology gap ratios have fluctuated and showed a downward trend. Those with a technology gap ratio that fluctuates and shows an upward trend include seven provinces, Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, and Ningxia.
4.5. Inefficiency Analysis of Environmental Pollution Control
In order to further explore the reasons for the inefficiency of environmental governance in various provinces and cities and to provide decision-making reference for improving this inefficiency, we decompose the inefficiency value (IE) of each province and municipality with invalid environmental governance into technical level gap inefficiency (TIE) and management inefficiency (MIE) (see
Table 5). According to
Table 4, the main reason for the inefficiency of environmental governance in each province in the high-income group is management inefficiency, as technical inefficiency accounts for a small proportion. The main reason for the ineffective environmental governance of the provinces in the middle- and high-income groups is technical inefficiency. Among them, Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Sichuan, Gansu, and Ningxia all have technical inefficiency.
Among the high-income groups in 2010, management inefficiencies were the full cause of environmental governance inefficiency for four provinces including Liaoning, Jilin, Shandong, and Guangdong. For other provinces such as Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Hubei, Chongqing, and Shaanxi, inefficiency and management inefficiency combined together for environmental governance inefficiency, but with management inefficiency as the main reason. Among the upper-middle-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiencies in 11 provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Sichuan, Gansu, Ningxia, and Xinjiang were entirely due to technical inefficiency. Among them, Guangxi mainly incurs management inefficiency, and Guizhou, Yunnan, and Qinghai mainly experience technical inefficiency.
In the high-income group in 2011, three provinces’ environmental governance inefficiencies, including Liaoning, Jilin, and Shandong, were caused entirely by management inefficiency, while the other five provinces such as Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Hubei, and Shaanxi were caused by both technical and management inefficiencies. Ineffective management is the main reason for environmental governance inefficiency. Among the high-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiencies of Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang are all due to technical inefficiency, while Guangxi and Yunnan are due to technical inefficiency and management inefficiency, but technical inefficiency is still the main reason.
Among the high-income groups in 2012, the environmental governance inefficiencies of five provinces including Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Shandong, and Shaanxi were caused by inefficient management, while the environmental governance inefficiencies of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Hubei and Guangdong were due to both technology and management, but with management inefficiency as the main reason. Among the high-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiency 13 provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang are all due to technical inefficiencies. Guangxi and Yunnan are due to technical inefficiencies. Inefficiency and management inefficiency are caused together, but technical inefficiency is the main cause of inefficiency in environmental governance.
Among the high-income groups in 2013, the environmental governance inefficiencies of Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Shandong, and Shaanxi were caused by ineffective management. The environmental governance inefficiencies of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Hubei were due to ineffective management. Technical inefficiency is caused by a combination of technologies, but management inefficiency is the main reason. Among the high-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiencies in 13 provinces, including Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang, were entirely due to technical inefficiency, while for Guangxi and Yunnan they were caused by technical inefficiency and management ineffectiveness, but with technical inefficiency as the main reason.
Among the high-income groups in 2014, the environmental governance inefficiencies of Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, and Shandong were caused by ineffective management, while the environmental governance inefficiencies of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Hubei were due to both ineffective management and technology, but with ineffective management as the main reason. Among the upper-middle-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiencies of 12 provinces including Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang were all caused by technical inefficiency, while for Guangxi and Yunnan they were caused by ineffective management and technical ineffectiveness, but with technical inefficiency as the main reason.
In the high-income group in 2015, the environmental governance inefficiencies in Shandong and Shaanxi provinces were entirely caused by ineffective management, and for Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Hubei they were caused by ineffective technology and ineffective management, but with ineffective management as the main reason. Among the upper-middle-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiencies of Guangxi and Yunnan were caused by ineffective management and technical ineffectiveness, but with technical inefficiency as the main reason. For Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang, the environmental governance inefficiencies were completely caused by technical ineffectiveness.
Among the high-income groups in 2016, the environmental governance inefficiencies of Shandong and Shaanxi provinces were entirely caused by ineffective management, while for Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Hubei they were caused by ineffective technology and ineffective management, but with ineffective management as the main reason. Among the upper-middle-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiencies of Guangxi and Yunnan were caused by ineffective management and technical ineffectiveness, but with technical inefficiency as the main reason. For Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang, their environmental governance inefficiencies were completely caused by technical inefficiency.
In the high-income group in 2017, the environmental governance inefficiencies of Liaoning and Shandong provinces were caused entirely by ineffective management, entirely caused by technical ineffectiveness for Jiangsu, and caused by technical inefficiency and ineffective management, but with ineffective management as the main reason for Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Zhejiang, Hubei, and Shaanxi. Among the low- and middle-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiency of Xinjiang was caused by ineffective management and technical inefficiency, but with the latter as the main reason. For Hebei, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Guangxi, Yunnan, Gansu, Qinghai, and Ningxia, their environmental governance inefficiencies were entirely due to technical inefficiency.
From the perspective of input and output factors, whether for high-income groups or low- and middle-income groups, the environmental governance inefficiency of each province from 2010 to 2017 was due to inefficiency of input factors (see
Table 6).