The Progress and Framework of Ecological Welfare Performance Within the Context of the “Dual Carbon” Goal: A Comprehensive Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Main Concepts
2.1. Ecological Welfare
2.2. Ecological Welfare Performance
3. Research Progress on Ecological Welfare Under the “Dual Carbon” Goal
3.1. Advances in Welfare Representation Research
3.2. Research Progress on the Relationship Between Ecosystem Services and Welfare
3.3. Research Progress on Ecological Welfare Performance
3.4. Research on the “Dual Carbon” Goal and Ecological Welfare Performance
4. Theoretical Research Framework
4.1. Analysis of the Relationship Between Ecological Consumption and Welfare Factors
4.2. Research Paradigm: From Weak Sustainability to Strong Sustainability Paradigm
4.3. Construction of a Framework for Ecological Welfare Performance Evaluation
5. Discussion
5.1. Marginal Contribution of Research
- (1)
- Theoretical research contributions: First of all, this study makes adjustments and innovations in the theoretical research framework of ecological welfare performance. This study proposes, for the first time, a two-stage assessment framework integrating the interaction between natural ecological consumption, economic growth, and social welfare. The framework emphasizes the transition from a weak sustainable development model to a strong sustainable development model [43,75], providing a new perspective for understanding and evaluating ecological welfare performance under the “dual carbon” target. Secondly, by combining the theories and methods of economics, environmental science, sociology, sustainable development economics, and other disciplines, this study systematically discusses the internal relationship between the “dual carbon” target and ecological welfare performance, which not only enriches and improves the research method system of ecological economics but also improves the research method system of ecological economics. It also fills a theoretical gap in the existing literature on how to integrate a “dual carbon” goal with improved human well-being.
- (2)
- New research perspective: Previous studies were mostly carried out by means of quantitative analysis methods such as spatial analysis and mathematical statistics [48,61,66], such as the measurement of well-being level [37,38,39,40], the measurement of ecological welfare performance [67,68], and the identification of temporal and spatial evolution characteristics and influencing factors [74]. Few studies theoretically explored deep-rooted topics such as conceptual connotation, theoretical research frameworks, and the internal mechanism of ecological welfare performance [47]. Moreover, there is little research that integrates into the “dual carbon” goal of the national major strategy, which will provide a new perspective for future scholars to study ecological welfare performance [73].
5.2. Research Implications
5.3. Limitations of This Article
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- In recent years, research on ecological welfare performance has undergone a significant paradigm shift, from a single-dimension discussion in the early days to a complex system with multi-disciplinary and multi-level comprehensive consideration. Current research focuses on the following aspects: First is the connotation and representation of welfare. Scholars have deeply explored the multidimensional nature of “well-being” in ecological welfare performance, which is not only limited to economic benefits at the material level but also emphasizes the importance of non-material factors such as social equity, cultural inheritance and personal happiness. The second is the interaction between the ecosystem and welfare. Through the establishment of more detailed models and empirical analysis, researchers have revealed the dynamic relationship between the service function of natural ecosystems and human social welfare. In particular, the issue of how to maximize social and economic benefits under the premise of ensuring ecological security has received wide attention. The third is ecological welfare performance evaluation. With the progress of research methodology, more and more studies have adopted the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, such as the proportion method, DEA model, SFA model, multi-stage Super-SBM model, and other models, to measure the changing trend of ecological welfare performance. Fourth are the “two-carbon” goal and ecological welfare performance. Relevant studies pay special attention to the possible positive or negative impacts of carbon emissions, welfare, and low-carbon transition, and explore specific paths to achieve a win–win situation between green growth and environmental protection.
- (2)
- From the perspective of historical evolution, the research in this field is gradually moving away from theoretical abstraction and toward a more pragmatic application orientation. Most scholars realize that in order to better serve the needs of decision making, empirical research must be strengthened, focusing on case analysis and interdisciplinary cooperation, while actively introducing cutting-edge technologies and innovative ideas. Future research will continue to focus on developing and refining new theoretical frameworks and methodologies for a more comprehensive understanding of the complex mechanisms underlying ecological welfare performance, including but not limited to its temporal evolution, spatial heterogeneity, and how drivers work.
- (3)
- When constructing the ecological welfare performance evaluation framework, researchers prefer a two-stage methodology, which is divided into a production stage and service stage, and clearly identifies the transformation process and internal structure of ecological welfare performance, so as to deepen the understanding of the relationship between natural ecological consumption, economic growth and welfare. This method not only helps to scientifically assess the sustainable development capacity of a country or region but also provides a solid theoretical basis and technical support for formulating policy measures that meet the requirements of the “dual carbon” goal. It can be seen that ecological welfare performance research has entered a new stage of development, which is not only an important topic in the academic community but also a key link to solve the challenge of global climate change and promote the transformation of economic society to a green and low-carbon one. Through the continuous deepening of theoretical exploration and practical application, ecological welfare performance optimization and carbon emission reduction can promote each other, improve residents’ well-being through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the environment, and promote integrated management and international cooperation, which will help realize a low-carbon and high-welfare future and provide a scientific basis for policy formulation.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yu, C.X.; Zhen, H.B.; Wu, Y.F. Research on the efficiency and innovation mechanisms of the green transformation of typical manufacturing cities under the goal of “Dual Carbon”. Chin. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 15, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Y.X.; Lu, N.; Li, S.Y. Background, challenge, opportunity and realization path of dual carbon goal. China Econ. Rev. 2021, 5, 10–13. [Google Scholar]
- Fang, S.J.; Xiao, Q. Research on the ecological welfare performance level and spatial effects in China. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2019, 29, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.X.; Xu, Z.X.; Liu, C.J. Coupling analysis of land intensive utilization efficiency and ecological welfare performance in prefecture-level cities in the Yellow River Basin. J. Nat. Resour. 2021, 36, 114–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, M.J.; Li, Z.J.; Yu, F.L. The Spatial-Temporal Response Relationship between Comprehensive Welfare, Resource-Environmental Pressures, and Economic Growth in Yangtze River Delta Cities. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2021, 36, 2236–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Max-Neef, M. Economic growth and quality of life: A threshold hypothesis. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 15, 115–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawn, P. The failure of the ISEW and GPI to fully account for changes in human health capital: A methodological shortcoming not a theoretical weakness. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 88, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armiento, M. The sustainable welfare index: Towards a threshold effect for Italy. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 152, 296–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, L.J.; Wang, X. Research on the relationship between ecological loss, economic growth and welfare levels in China’s urbanization process-based on Tapio decoupling analysis and Granger causality testing. Inq. Into Econ. Issues 2017, 38, 98–106. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.Y.; Zhai, C.Y. Evolution and factor analysis of spatial differences in the global human development index (HDI). J. Econ. Geogr. 2018, 38, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J. The emerging concept of ecological well-being and the transformation of the medical security model. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 29, 132–135. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.F. Ecological welfare socialization through the lens of social work. China J. Soc. Work 2012, 19, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, W.L.; Li, S.Z.; Li, C. Ecosystem services and human well-being-a review of the literature and an analytical framework. Resour. Sci. 2013, 35, 1482–1489. [Google Scholar]
- Zang, Z.; Zou, X.Q.; Wu, L. Ecological well-being and eco-economic efficiency evaluation in mainland China based on the perspectives of fairness and efficiency. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 2403–2414. [Google Scholar]
- He, L.; Chen, X. Research on sustainable economic development in Shanxi Province based on ecological well-being. Res. Dev. 2011, 27, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Q.; Li, D.; Zhao, Q. The relationship and coordination between urban green space and the realization of ecological benefits for residents. Soc. Sci. Guangxi 2019, 35, 76–80. [Google Scholar]
- Dodds, S. Towards a “Science of Sustainability”: Improving the way ecological economics understands human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 23, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daly, H.E. A further critique of growth economics. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 88, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daly, H.E. Steady-state economics versus growth mania: A critique of the orthodox conceptions of growth economics. Policy Sci. 1974, 5, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, D.J.; Zhang, S. Research on ecological welfare performance and its relationship with economic growth. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2014, 24, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
- Long, L.J. Performance evaluation and international comparison of China’s ecological civilization construction from a comprehensive welfare perspective. J. Nat. Resour. 2019, 34, 1259–1272. [Google Scholar]
- Zang, M.D.; Zhu, D.J.; Liu, G.P. Ecological welfare performance: Concept, connotation and G20 empirical evidence. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2013, 23, 118–124. [Google Scholar]
- The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. TEEB for Business: Risks, Opportunities and Metrics; United Nations Environment Programme: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin-Young, M. Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e27108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haase, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Elmqvist, T. Cities as living laboratories: Understanding the process of social-ecological transitions. Urban Ecosyst. 2014, 17, 711–725. [Google Scholar]
- Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y. Spatial-temporal evolution and driving forces of ecological well-being in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150167. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Y. The role of technological innovation in improving ecological welfare performance: A regional analysis in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 171, 120887. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, R.; Zhu, Y.; Shen, S.; Du, L.; Fu, J.; Zou, J.; Peng, L. Does urban shrinkage inhibit residents’ welfare? From the perspective of urban–rural development in China. Soc. Indic. Res. 2024, 171, 847–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Liu, X. The relationship between economic development and ecological well-being: Evidence from Chinese cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118467. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, B.; Tang, L.; Zhang, X. Environmental regulation, industrial structure upgrading and ecological welfare performance: An empirical analysis based on China’s provincial panel data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 183, 105977. [Google Scholar]
- Braat, L.C.; de Groot, R. The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hang, L. Research on comprehensive welfare levels based on sustainable development. J. Bus. Econ. 2020, 38, 132–134. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Y.Q.; Liu, M.Q. Mechanism analysis of quality of life assessment of subjective and objective well-being. J. Humanit. 2021, 64, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Yasir, R.; Waqar, M.K.; Asadul-Islam, K. The index of sustainable economic welfare for Pakistan. Int. J. Ecol. Econ. Stat. 2020, 41, 81–96. [Google Scholar]
- Mitsuhiko, I. GDP and GPI concepts are complementary: Towards a welfare-oriented economic society. World Econ. 2021, 22, 29–51. [Google Scholar]
- Diener, E.; Scollon, C.N.; Lucas, R.E. The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Adv. Cell Aging Gerontol. 2003, 15, 187–219. [Google Scholar]
- Jitmaneeroj, B. Beyond the equal-weight framework of the Social Progress Index. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2017, 44, 2336–2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balestra, C.; Boarini, R.; Tosetto, E. What matters most to people? Evidence from the OECD Better Life Index users’s responses. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 136, 907–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.Y.; Zhai, C.Y.; Luo, Y. Multidimensional well-being measurement and regional balance analysis in China based on the ‘function-capability’ framework. Geoscience 2018, 38, 2031–2039. [Google Scholar]
- Juan, T. Defining and measuring human development: A genealogical analysis of the UNDP’s human development reports. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2023, 35, 520–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, W.L.; Chen, C.C.Z. Comparison of China’s urban-rural gap over 40 years (1978–2017): An analysis based on the human development index. J. Hebei Norm. Univ. (Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 44, 120–129. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Mei, J.; He, C.Y. Regional sustainability evaluation based on weak HSDI and strong HSDI—A case study of China’s Bohai Rim. J. Nat. Resour. 2019, 34, 1285–1295. [Google Scholar]
- Bian, S.; Wang, Z.H. Measurement and analysis of human green development index--Taking Liaoning Province as an example. For. Econ. 2021, 43, 5–19. [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.; Ma, R.N. Measurement of the level of high-quality economic development of China’s three major economic circles and analysis of influencing factors—Based on the perspective of social welfare level. Res. Bus. Econ. 2022, 40, 162–165. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Z.H.; Li, Y. Measuring the welfare level of urban residents in China’s sub-regions. Financ. Res. 2018, 44, 111–124. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, J.Z. A new perspective on welfare research: The theoretical starting point, connotation and evolution of viability. Foreign Soc. Sci. 2018, 40, 53–67. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.B.; Wang, Y. Regional differences, dynamic evolution and structural decomposition of China’s welfare level under the viability perspective. Res. Quant. Tech. Econ. 2021, 38, 45–66. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, D.; Chen, H.; Zhang, X. Impacts of ecosystem services on human well-being and their group differences in loess hills and gullies. Geogr. Res. 2022, 41, 1298–1310. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, X.Y.; Meng, S.T.; Huang, Q.X. Regional planning combining ecosystem service supply, demand and human well-being. J. Ecol. 2022, 42, 5748–5760. [Google Scholar]
- Schumacher, J.; Lange, S.; Felix, M.F. Assessment of ecosystem services across the Land-Sea Interface in Baltic case studies. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.G.; Zhou, J. From ecosystems to human welfare: The role and conservation of biodiversity. Ciência Rural 2019, 49, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, Y.; Hou, K.L.; Zheng, Y.R. Relationships between farm household well-being and ecosystem services in the southern hilly mountains based on structural equation modelling—A case study of Lechang City, Guangdong Province. Trop. Geogr. 2020, 40, 843–855. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Li, S.C.; Gao, Y. A classification framework for ecosystem services connecting multiple levels of human well-being. J. Geogr. 2013, 68, 1038–1047. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Chen, F.; Jiao, Y.M. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services and human well-being in villages with different tourism modes in the Hani Terraced Area. J. Ecol. 2020, 40, 5179–5189. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.Q.; Zhao, X.Y.; Du, Y.X. Spatial and temporal changes in the coupled relationship between ecosystem services and well-being of residents in the Qinba Mountains. J. Nat. Resour. 2021, 36, 2522–2540. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, X.B.; Tao, Y.; Ou, W.X. Research progress on the relationship between ecosystem service and human well-being. J. Ecol. Rural. Environ. 2021, 37, 885–893. [Google Scholar]
- Tu, X.Y.; Huang, G.L.; Wu, J.G. A review of research on the relationship between urban green space accessibility and residents’ well-being. J. Ecol. 2019, 39, 421–431. [Google Scholar]
- Da Silva, J.M.C.; Prasad, S.; Diniz Filho, J.A.F. The impact of deforestation, urbanization, public in-vestments, and agriculture on human welfare in the Brazilian Amazonia. Land Use Policy 2017, 65, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.J.; Xie, Z.H.; Wu, R. How does urbanization affect the carbon intensity of human well-being? A global assessment. Appl. Energy 2022, 312, 118798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.H.; Zhuang, X.H. Measurement of ecological welfare performance level and analysis of influencing factors in Chinese urban agglomerations. Res. Tech. Econ. Manag. 2022, 310, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
- Zang, M.D.; Gao, Y.; Li, J. A study on the effects of administrative level and city size on ecological welfare performance. J. Nat. Resour. 2022, 37, 3201–3216. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Luo, Y.; Wang, S.Y. Spatial effects of economic performance on the carbon intensity of human well-being: The environmental Kuznets curve in Chinese provinces. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 681–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdallah, S.; Michaelson, J.; Shah, S.; Stoll, L.; Marks, N. The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report. In A Global Index of Sustainable Well-Being; London, UK, 2012; Available online: www.happyplanetindex.org (accessed on 14 November 2024).
- Claborn, K.A.; Brooks, J.S. Can we consume less and gain more? Environmental efficiency of well-being at the individual level. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.W.; Guo, Z.C.; Niu, X.X. Comprehensive evaluation on sustainable development based on planetary pressures and ecological well-being performance: A case study on the belt and road regions. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Mei, D. Sustainable development of China’s regions from the perspective of ecological welfare performance: Analysis based on GM(1,1) and the Malmquist Index. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 1086–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, D.; Yu, K.; Zhong, J.; Zhu, J. Spatial distribution characteristics and variability of urban ecological welfare performance in the Yangtze River economic Belt: Evidence from 70 cities. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 160, 111846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.J. Measurement of ecological welfare performance and characterisation of spatial correlation networks in China. Stat. Decis. Mak. 2021, 37, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, L.M.; Zhang, X.P. Spatio-temporal characteristics of coupled coordination of green innovation efficiency and ecological welfare performance under the concept of strong sustainability. J. Nat. Resour. 2019, 34, 312–324. [Google Scholar]
- Bian, J.; Ren, H.; Liu, P. Evaluation of urban ecological well-being performance in China: A case study of 30 provincial capital cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Li, Z.G. Improving urban ecological welfare performance: An ST-LMDI approach to the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Land 2024, 13, 1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.Y.; Zhang, R.; Gu, J. Evolution of ecological welfare performance and driving mechanism of city cluster in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River under the goal of “Dual Carbon”. Prog. Geogr. Sci. 2022, 41, 2231–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.X.; Xu, W.X.; Liu, C.J. An analysis of the dynamic evolution of urban ecological welfare performance and its influencing factors—A case study of prefecture-level and above cities in the Yellow River Basin. Urban Issues 2021, 312, 52–60. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, M.J.; Sarwar, S.; Li, Z.J. Spatio-temporal differentiation mode and threshold effect of Yangtze River Delta urban ecological well-being performance based on network DEA. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, Y.J.; Yang, X.; Ma, Q.W. Regional disparities and convergence of ecological welfare performance levels in China. China Popul.-Resour. Environ. 2021, 31, 132–143. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, Y.J.; Zhong, S.Y.; Li, Q.Y. Ecological well-being performance growth in China (1994–2014): From perspectives of industrial structure green adjustment and green total factor productivity. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazur, A. Does increasing energy or electricity consumption improve quality of life in industrial nations. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2568–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, G.P.; Zhu, D.J. Study on the relationship between carbon emissions, economic growth and welfare in China. Res. Financ. Trade 2011, 22, 83–88. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, G.P. Research on carbon emission welfare performance and its influencing factors: Based on G20 data. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2022, 42, 235–242. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, B.Y.; Xu, Y.Z. Welfare spillover effects of inter-provincial carbon emission transfers in China. China Popul.-Resour. Environ. 2022, 32, 58–69. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, Z.Q.; Gao, T.F.; Pang, R.Z. Research on the phenomenon of “passive collusion” of enterprises: An analysis of the welfare effect of environmental regulation under the “Dual Carbon” goal. China Ind. Econ. 2022, 412, 122–140. [Google Scholar]
- Frijters, P.; Van Praag, B.M.S. The effects of climate on welfare and well-being in Russia. Clim. Chang. 1998, 39, 615–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Lucas, R.E.; Scollon, C.N. Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. Am. Psychol. 2006, 61, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andersson, D.; Nassen, J.; Larsson, J. Greenhouse gas emissions and subjective well-being: An analysis of Swedish households. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 102, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.Y.; Zhang, R.; Gu, J. Economic-environmental effects of changes in ecological welfare performance of urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River under the “Dual Carbon” target. Econ. Geogr. 2023, 43, 89–96. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, J.F.; Ou, X.T. Impacts of carbon emissions trading policies on urban ecological welfare performance from the perspective of high-quality development. J. Earth Sci. Environ. 2023, 45, 373–384. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, P.; Kumar, N. Assessing the economic value of ecosystem services: A meta-analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 093001. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, E.M.; Cramer, W.; Begossi, A.; Cundill, G.; Díaz, S.; Egoh, B.N.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Krug, C.B.; Lavorel, S.; Lazos, E.; et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 40, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Li, T.; Liao, Q.; Liu, D. Multi-scale analysis of supply–demand relationship of ecosystem services and zoning management in a key ecological-restoration City (Ganzhou) of China. Nat. Resour. Res. 2024, 33, 1871–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, D.W.; Atkinson, G.D. Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: An indicator of “Weak” Sustainability. Econ. J. 1993, 103, 1039–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daly, H.E. Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development: Selected Essays of Herman Daly; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, K.G.; Odgaard, M.V.; Bøcher, P.K.; Svenning, J.C.; Dalgaard, T. Biodiversity’s contributions to ecosystem services are not fully captured by current indicators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 11312–11317. [Google Scholar]
- Dasgupta, P. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S., III; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, H.; Wang, S.; Zhou, P. Assessing the impact of urbanization on ecological well-being in China: A spatial-temporal analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7745. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hu, M.; Chen, G.; Li, Z. The Progress and Framework of Ecological Welfare Performance Within the Context of the “Dual Carbon” Goal: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020410
Hu M, Chen G, Li Z. The Progress and Framework of Ecological Welfare Performance Within the Context of the “Dual Carbon” Goal: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(2):410. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020410
Chicago/Turabian StyleHu, Meijuan, Gong Chen, and Zaijun Li. 2025. "The Progress and Framework of Ecological Welfare Performance Within the Context of the “Dual Carbon” Goal: A Comprehensive Literature Review" Sustainability 17, no. 2: 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020410
APA StyleHu, M., Chen, G., & Li, Z. (2025). The Progress and Framework of Ecological Welfare Performance Within the Context of the “Dual Carbon” Goal: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Sustainability, 17(2), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020410