| Literature DB >> 31766285 |
Ying Li1, Yung-Ho Chiu2, Huaming Chen3, Tai-Yu Lin2.
Abstract
Over the past few decades, China's rapid economic, energy, and industrial developments have caused serious environmental damage. However, as there are large resource, energy use, economic, and environmental damage differences across Chinese regions, the Chinese government is seeking to reduce city pollution across the country. Most previous analyses have only looked at these issues on a single level; for example, the impact of environmental pollution on health, or energy and environmental efficiency analyses, but there have been few studies that have conducted overall analyses. Further, many of the methods that have been used in previous research have employed one-stage radial or non-radial analyses without considering regional differences. Therefore, this paper developed a meta undesirable two-stage EBM DEA model to analyze the energy, environment, health, and media communication efficiencies in 31 Chinese cities, from which it was found that the productivity efficiency in most cities was better than the health treatment efficiencies, the GDP and fixed asset efficiency improvements were small, the air quality index (AQI) and CO2 efficiencies varied widely between the cities, media report and governance inputs were generally inefficient, the birth rate efficiencies were better than the respiratory disease efficiencies, and the technical gap was best in Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Lhasa. Also, it found that high-income cities have a higher technology gap than upper middle-income cities, and media reports efficiency have a high correlation with respiratory diseases and CO2.Entities:
Keywords: EBM two stage model; energy efficiency; environmental efficiency; media coverage; public health
Year: 2019 PMID: 31766285 PMCID: PMC6955914 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare7040144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Inputs and outputs in the production and health treatment stage.
Figure 2Network data envelopment analysis (DEA) index.
Figure 3Statistical analysis of labor, fixed assets, energy consumption, AQI, CO2, and GDP.
Figure 4Health expenditure, media reports, respiratory diseases, and birth rate statistics.
Overall efficiencies in the 31 Chinese capital cities from 2013 to 2016.
| NO | DMU | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing | 1 | 0.920417 | 0.733929 | 0.781173 |
| 2 | Changchun | 0.780636 | 0.744334 | 0.626083 | 0.693914 |
| 3 | Changsha | 0.613127 | 0.83919 | 0.813482 | 0.888706 |
| 4 | Chengdu | 0.495873 | 0.569804 | 0.518157 | 0.491098 |
| 5 | Chongqing | 0.692683 | 0.700274 | 0.67162 | 0.709513 |
| 6 | Fuzhou | 0.976286 | 0.786121 | 0.945944 | 0.93785 |
| 7 | Guangzhou | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | Guiyang | 0.625708 | 0.615078 | 0.556014 | 0.619227 |
| 9 | Harbin | 0.667707 | 0.625093 | 0.548797 | 0.612453 |
| 10 | Haikou | 0.965631 | 0.816178 | 0.944715 | 0.912714 |
| 11 | Hangzhou | 0.599453 | 0.680341 | 0.589847 | 0.711524 |
| 12 | Hefei | 0.603771 | 0.578212 | 0.718987 | 0.948708 |
| 13 | Huhehot | 0.771201 | 0.783619 | 0.675695 | 0.761003 |
| 14 | Jinan | 0.576035 | 0.578343 | 0.582106 | 1 |
| 15 | Kunming | 0.651187 | 0.616113 | 0.667184 | 0.652977 |
| 16 | Lanzhou | 0.691725 | 0.647571 | 0.520495 | 0.657953 |
| 17 | Lhasa | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | Nanchang | 0.747725 | 0.751731 | 0.684811 | 0.678634 |
| 19 | Nanjing | 0.626384 | 0.771059 | 0.660945 | 0.752753 |
| 20 | Nanning | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.963501 |
| 21 | Shanghai | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | Shenyang | 0.57641 | 0.653371 | 0.471707 | 0.872131 |
| 23 | Shijiazhuang | 0.481009 | 0.478092 | 0.462524 | 0.439574 |
| 24 | Taiyuan | 0.61132 | 0.568609 | 0.558776 | 0.617309 |
| 25 | Tianjin | 0.63171 | 0.624746 | 0.580419 | 0.618667 |
| 26 | Wuhan | 0.969384 | 0.743701 | 0.737345 | 0.701077 |
| 27 | Urumqi | 0.957401 | 0.944612 | 0.680446 | 0.97296 |
| 28 | Xian | 0.675965 | 0.826735 | 0.598937 | 0.652698 |
| 29 | Xining | 0.606469 | 0.610215 | 0.544589 | 0.570594 |
| 30 | Yinchuan | 0.768444 | 0.738936 | 0.658954 | 0.732169 |
| 31 | Zhengzhou | 0.755548 | 0.76361 | 0.791239 | 0.605025 |
Figure 5Overall efficiencies in the 31 Chinese cities from 2013 to 2016.
Thirty-one city two-stage efficiencies from 2013 to 2016.
| NO. | DMU | 2013 S-1 | 2013 S-2 | 2014 S-1 | 2014 S-2 | 2015 S-1 | 2015 S-2 | 2016 S-1 | 2016 S-2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing | 1 | 1 | 0.9841 | 0.859717 | 1 | 0.523655 | 0.967305 | 0.620516 |
| 2 | Changchun | 0.784014 | 0.777225 | 0.810363 | 0.683197 | 0.867712 | 0.440007 | 0.666735 | 0.722244 |
| 3 | Changsha | 0.867294 | 0.422157 | 0.854909 | 0.823818 | 0.847923 | 0.780553 | 0.862052 | 0.915606 |
| 4 | Chengdu | 0.631859 | 0.381234 | 0.599879 | 0.540916 | 0.666245 | 0.393688 | 0.588109 | 0.404624 |
| 5 | Chongqing | 0.57216 | 0.833457 | 0.577451 | 0.842549 | 0.577227 | 0.778049 | 0.58374 | 0.854677 |
| 6 | Fuzhou | 0.953513 | 1 | 0.612554 | 1 | 0.896525 | 1 | 0.882006 | 1 |
| 7 | Guangzhou | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | Guiyang | 0.430391 | 0.881465 | 0.464297 | 0.800737 | 0.48783 | 0.631223 | 0.496444 | 0.762751 |
| 9 | Harbin | 0.843138 | 0.523092 | 0.820257 | 0.468745 | 0.911042 | 0.304295 | 0.60593 | 0.619029 |
| 10 | Haikou | 0.932073 | 1 | 0.662616 | 1 | 0.894992 | 1 | 0.839084 | 1 |
| 11 | Hangzhou | 0.828935 | 0.421705 | 0.819238 | 0.561614 | 0.830777 | 0.405179 | 0.857406 | 0.588141 |
| 12 | Hefei | 0.750495 | 0.479733 | 0.748732 | 0.439018 | 0.734275 | 0.703888 | 0.901489 | 1 |
| 13 | Huhehot | 0.794014 | 0.749271 | 0.79885 | 0.768767 | 0.784616 | 0.579296 | 0.767966 | 0.754124 |
| 14 | Jinan | 0.69103 | 0.474712 | 0.681966 | 0.48622 | 0.648869 | 0.520022 | 1 | 1 |
| 15 | Kunming | 0.447209 | 0.924271 | 0.450665 | 0.824437 | 0.506021 | 0.870361 | 0.495605 | 0.849659 |
| 16 | Lanzhou | 0.512725 | 0.92661 | 0.437378 | 0.935135 | 0.448104 | 0.600829 | 0.457415 | 0.93038 |
| 17 | Lhasa | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | Nanchang | 0.849399 | 0.655427 | 0.83084 | 0.678777 | 0.794252 | 0.5873 | 0.662679 | 0.695209 |
| 19 | Nanjing | 0.865647 | 0.443562 | 0.822589 | 0.72271 | 0.880772 | 0.487604 | 0.918836 | 0.614334 |
| 20 | Nanning | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.928314 | 1 |
| 21 | Shanghai | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | Shenyang | 0.677385 | 0.487561 | 0.668757 | 0.638463 | 0.651262 | 0.328558 | 1 | 0.761222 |
| 23 | Shijiazhuang | 0.420644 | 0.546837 | 0.420201 | 0.541625 | 0.381233 | 0.554448 | 0.388758 | 0.494223 |
| 24 | Taiyuan | 0.497082 | 0.745665 | 0.485602 | 0.6623 | 0.48296 | 0.64264 | 0.496031 | 0.76024 |
| 25 | Tianjin | 0.79577 | 0.49495 | 0.788973 | 0.489891 | 0.777944 | 0.420716 | 0.830746 | 0.451418 |
| 26 | Wuhan | 0.939486 | 1 | 0.759276 | 0.728561 | 0.760506 | 0.714807 | 0.806428 | 0.608009 |
| 27 | Urumqi | 0.91658 | 1 | 0.892165 | 1 | 0.594624 | 0.778365 | 0.947314 | 1 |
| 28 | Xian | 0.625065 | 0.730118 | 0.680201 | 1 | 0.615122 | 0.582851 | 0.559771 | 0.758082 |
| 29 | Xining | 0.497994 | 0.733845 | 0.4237 | 0.855227 | 0.420998 | 0.69296 | 0.443779 | 0.726317 |
| 30 | Yinchuan | 0.610989 | 0.961078 | 0.566618 | 0.954052 | 0.557347 | 0.775328 | 0.570696 | 0.932932 |
| 31 | Zhengzhou | 0.878029 | 0.645468 | 0.905744 | 0.638679 | 0.973174 | 0.63835 | 0.726674 | 0.497766 |
Note: S1 refers to Stage 1 in the DEA analysis; S2 refers to Stage 2 in the DEA analysis.
Wilcoxon Test of efficiency for the high-income and upper middle–income countries.
| Total | Production Stage | Treatment Stage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 0.0590* | 0.0064** | 0.0094** |
| 2014 | 0.2711 | 0.2083 | 0.2275 |
| 2015 | 0.0590* | 0.0086** | 0.0030** |
| 2016 | 0.0569* | 0.2264 | 0.1763 |
* less than 10% significant; ** less than 5% significant.
First-stage input efficiencies.
| No. | DMU | 2013–2016 Average Labor | 2013–2016 Average Asset | 2013–2016 Average Energy Consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing | 0.9383 | 0.9780 | 0.9956 |
| 2 | Changchun | 0.8428 | 0.6555 | 0.8828 |
| 3 | Changsha | 0.9419 | 0.5077 | 0.6611 |
| 4 | Chengdu | 0.7700 | 0.6418 | 0.7700 |
| 5 | Chongqing | 0.5457 | 0.4480 | 0.7471 |
| 6 | Fuzhou | 0.9217 | 0.6527 | 0.9419 |
| 7 | Guangzhou | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| 8 | Guiyang | 0.6463 | 0.5036 | 0.5556 |
| 9 | Harbin | 0.7143 | 0.6105 | 0.8928 |
| 10 | Haikou | 0.7574 | 0.9182 | 0.9447 |
| 11 | Hangzhou | 0.9201 | 0.6535 | 0.7757 |
| 12 | Hefei | 0.8974 | 0.5208 | 0.8974 |
| 13 | Huhehot | 0.8923 | 0.7088 | 0.6350 |
| 14 | Jinan | 0.8601 | 0.8368 | 0.6553 |
| 15 | Kunming | 0.6486 | 0.5393 | 0.6027 |
| 16 | Lanzhou | 0.6441 | 0.6225 | 0.3322 |
| 17 | Lhasa | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| 18 | Nanchang | 0.8860 | 0.5537 | 0.8860 |
| 19 | Nanjing | 0.9455 | 0.5825 | 0.7513 |
| 20 | Nanning | 0.9069 | 0.8994 | 1.0000 |
| 21 | Shanghai | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| 22 | Shenyang | 0.8612 | 0.5788 | 0.7322 |
| 23 | Shijiazhuang | 0.5828 | 0.5092 | 0.3962 |
| 24 | Taiyuan | 0.6742 | 0.6651 | 0.1782 |
| 25 | Tianjin | 0.9061 | 0.4395 | 0.6792 |
| 26 | Wuhan | 0.9094 | 0.5740 | 0.7818 |
| 27 | Urumqi | 0.8964 | 0.9026 | 0.8934 |
| 28 | Xian | 0.7718 | 0.5276 | 0.7718 |
| 29 | Xining | 0.6272 | 0.6054 | 0.3283 |
| 30 | Yinchuan | 0.7506 | 0.5442 | 0.3119 |
| 31 | Zhengzhou | 0.8945 | 0.6344 | 0.9369 |
First-stage input efficiencies.
| No. | DMU | 2013–2016 Average GDP | 2013–2016 Average CO2 | 2013–2016 Average AQI (Air Quality Index) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing | 0.9957 | 0.9935 | 0.9978 |
| 2 | Changchun | 0.9075 | 0.8822 | 0.6527 |
| 3 | Changsha | 0.9480 | 0.6615 | 0.8828 |
| 4 | Chengdu | 0.8428 | 0.7701 | 0.8041 |
| 5 | Chongqing | 0.8321 | 0.7445 | 0.9934 |
| 6 | Fuzhou | 0.7726 | 1.0000 | 0.9952 |
| 7 | Guangzhou | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.9958 |
| 8 | Guiyang | 0.7931 | 0.5915 | 0.7348 |
| 9 | Harbin | 0.9182 | 0.8930 | 0.5992 |
| 10 | Haikou | 0.7959 | 0.9998 | 0.9938 |
| 11 | Hangzhou | 0.9312 | 0.7762 | 0.8889 |
| 12 | Hefei | 0.8563 | 0.8985 | 0.7460 |
| 13 | Huhehot | 0.9115 | 0.6353 | 0.5633 |
| 14 | Jinan | 0.8982 | 0.6545 | 0.7602 |
| 15 | Kunming | 0.7939 | 0.6027 | 0.9736 |
| 16 | Lanzhou | 0.7924 | 0.3301 | 0.5271 |
| 17 | Lhasa | 1.0000 | 0.9994 | 0.9957 |
| 18 | Nanchang | 0.9094 | 0.8865 | 0.8332 |
| 19 | Nanjing | 0.9513 | 0.7524 | 0.9186 |
| 20 | Nanning | 0.9617 | 0.9998 | 0.9961 |
| 21 | Shanghai | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.9968 |
| 22 | Shenyang | 0.8988 | 0.7322 | 0.7841 |
| 23 | Shijiazhuang | 0.7727 | 0.4518 | 0.6126 |
| 24 | Taiyuan | 0.8028 | 0.1786 | 0.4634 |
| 25 | Tianjin | 0.9212 | 0.6792 | 0.7933 |
| 26 | Wuhan | 0.9254 | 0.7935 | 0.7364 |
| 27 | Urumqi | 0.8867 | 0.9183 | 0.8364 |
| 28 | Xian | 0.8440 | 0.8120 | 0.6197 |
| 29 | Xining | 0.7868 | 0.3272 | 0.5541 |
| 30 | Yinchuan | 0.8338 | 0.3122 | 0.5175 |
| 31 | Zhengzhou | 0.9481 | 0.9358 | 0.7081 |
First-stage input efficiencies.
| No. | DMU | 2013–2016 Average Media | 2013–2016 Average Health Expenditure | 2013–2016 Average Birth Rate | 2013–2016 Average Respiratory Diseases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing | 0.3643 | 0.551 | 0.90675 | 0.87775 |
| 2 | Changchun | 0.7965 | 0.4625 | 0.86225 | 0.7965 |
| 3 | Changsha | 0.6610 | 0.839 | 0.89275 | 0.839 |
| 4 | Chengdu | 0.6050 | 0.46 | 0.7805 | 0.605 |
| 5 | Chongqing | 0.9125 | 0.69775 | 0.9255 | 0.9125 |
| 6 | Fuzhou | 1.0000 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | Guangzhou | 1.0000 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | Guiyang | 0.8618 | 0.73475 | 0.90075 | 0.8715 |
| 9 | Harbin | 0.6468 | 0.46575 | 0.7975 | 0.64675 |
| 10 | Haikou | 1.0000 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | Hangzhou | 0.5170 | 0.66425 | 0.801 | 0.66425 |
| 12 | Hefei | 0.6230 | 0.76225 | 0.86475 | 0.77825 |
| 13 | Huhehot | 0.8313 | 0.706 | 0.878 | 0.83475 |
| 14 | Jinan | 0.4268 | 0.74375 | 0.85425 | 0.761 |
| 15 | Kunming | 0.9415 | 0.551 | 0.948 | 0.9415 |
| 16 | Lanzhou | 0.3515 | 0.73225 | 0.9575 | 0.9385 |
| 17 | Lhasa | 1.0000 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | Nanchang | 0.5108 | 0.53225 | 0.865 | 0.81325 |
| 19 | Nanjing | 0.5690 | 0.71575 | 0.82675 | 0.72425 |
| 20 | Nanning | 1.0000 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | Shanghai | 1.0000 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | Shenyang | 0.7003 | 0.63925 | 0.80625 | 0.64475 |
| 23 | Shijiazhuang | 0.4755 | 0.624 | 0.81675 | 0.7095 |
| 24 | Taiyuan | 0.5468 | 0.64575 | 0.882 | 0.84375 |
| 25 | Tianjin | 0.5703 | 0.2585 | 0.79575 | 0.65425 |
| 26 | Wuhan | 0.8633 | 0.71775 | 0.90075 | 0.86325 |
| 27 | Urumqi | 0.7778 | 0.97575 | 0.97975 | 0.97575 |
| 28 | Xian | 0.8383 | 0.613 | 0.90575 | 0.87175 |
| 29 | Xining | 0.3163 | 0.8015 | 0.90575 | 0.88175 |
| 30 | Yinchuan | 0.3618 | 0.9675 | 0.975 | 0.97025 |
| 31 | Zhengzhou | 0.3415 | 0.404 | 0.8515 | 0.785 |
Media, CO2, AQI, and respiratory diseases efficiency correlation test.
| CO2 | AQI | Respiratory Diseases | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013Media | 0.5861 | 0.4072 | 0.5932 |
| 2014Media | 0.4275 | 0.3387 | 0.4252 |
| 2015Media | 0.4384 | 0.6535 | 0.5751 |
| 2016Media | 0.5631 | 0.5619 | 0.3697 |
Technology gap ratio analysis.
| NO | DMU | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing | 1 | 0.920417 | 0.951156 | 0.905517 |
| 2 | Changchun | 0.799766 | 0.865208 | 0.626083 | 0.765738 |
| 3 | Changsha | 0.688145 | 0.876117 | 0.813482 | 0.888706 |
| 4 | Chengdu | 0.649096 | 0.66255 | 0.777481 | 0.7262 |
| 5 | Chongqing | 0.692683 | 0.700274 | 0.67162 | 0.709513 |
| 6 | Fuzhou | 0.976286 | 0.998914 | 1.001418 | 0.986605 |
| 7 | Guangzhou | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | Guiyang | 0.804812 | 0.789525 | 0.765699 | 0.783652 |
| 9 | Harbin | 0.78929 | 0.742931 | 0.661526 | 0.771179 |
| 10 | Haikou | 0.965631 | 0.891907 | 0.9715 | 0.934996 |
| 11 | Hangzhou | 0.892932 | 0.894409 | 0.914981 | 0.9587 |
| 12 | Hefei | 0.895494 | 0.881029 | 0.776732 | 0.948708 |
| 13 | Huhehot | 0.771201 | 0.783619 | 0.675695 | 0.761003 |
| 14 | Jinan | 0.845658 | 0.839612 | 0.801471 | 1 |
| 15 | Kunming | 0.742354 | 0.754756 | 0.790251 | 0.779946 |
| 16 | Lanzhou | 0.846304 | 0.818117 | 0.772737 | 0.777249 |
| 17 | Lhasa | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | Nanchang | 0.747725 | 0.751731 | 0.697362 | 0.703055 |
| 19 | Nanjing | 0.843292 | 0.887507 | 0.926665 | 0.952523 |
| 20 | Nanning | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.963501 |
| 21 | Shanghai | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | Shenyang | 0.77126 | 0.724574 | 0.755926 | 0.872131 |
| 23 | Shijiazhuang | 0.76481 | 0.769609 | 0.718522 | 0.731075 |
| 24 | Taiyuan | 0.766194 | 0.758631 | 0.75676 | 0.718906 |
| 25 | Tianjin | 0.866574 | 0.975213 | 0.943439 | 0.952695 |
| 26 | Wuhan | 0.980431 | 0.955047 | 0.970918 | 0.997056 |
| 27 | Urumqi | 0.957401 | 0.944612 | 0.680446 | 0.97296 |
| 28 | Xian | 0.821765 | 0.875207 | 0.809363 | 0.767682 |
| 29 | Xining | 0.890846 | 0.81891 | 0.821108 | 0.801893 |
| 30 | Yinchuan | 0.831326 | 0.817149 | 0.794892 | 0.789536 |
| 31 | Zhengzhou | 0.755548 | 0.76361 | 0.791239 | 0.901562 |
Figure 6Technology gap ratio in cities from 2013 to 2016.
Technology gap between the production stage and the health management stage in each city.
| NO | DMU | 2013 S1 | 2013 S2 | 2014 S1 | 2014 S2 | 2015 S1 | 2015 S2 | 2016 S1 | 2016 S2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing | 1 | 1 | 0.9841 | 0.859717 | 1 | 0.894374 | 0.977258 | 0.829966 |
| 2 | Changchun | 0.784014 | 0.816048 | 0.810363 | 0.924697 | 0.867712 | 0.440007 | 0.666735 | 0.880661 |
| 3 | Changsha | 0.879721 | 0.524584 | 0.932426 | 0.823818 | 0.847923 | 0.780553 | 0.862052 | 0.915606 |
| 4 | Chengdu | 0.631859 | 0.655117 | 0.599879 | 0.730815 | 0.666245 | 0.924537 | 0.588109 | 0.917548 |
| 5 | Chongqing | 0.57216 | 0.833457 | 0.577451 | 0.842549 | 0.577227 | 0.778049 | 0.58374 | 0.854677 |
| 6 | Fuzhou | 0.953513 | 1 | 0.997512 | 1 | 1.002561 | 1 | 0.974467 | 1 |
| 7 | Guangzhou | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | Guiyang | 0.633033 | 0.994539 | 0.596955 | 1.026177 | 0.579653 | 1.010953 | 0.597173 | 1.01622 |
| 9 | Harbin | 0.853814 | 0.722546 | 0.820257 | 0.661141 | 0.915633 | 0.440075 | 0.608234 | 0.98388 |
| 10 | Haikou | 0.932073 | 1 | 0.791953 | 1 | 0.945958 | 1 | 0.880062 | 1 |
| 11 | Hangzhou | 1.007733 | 0.777175 | 0.970302 | 0.819937 | 0.970346 | 0.849596 | 0.961007 | 0.956052 |
| 12 | Hefei | 0.805091 | 1.00597 | 0.79557 | 0.985432 | 0.734275 | 0.823614 | 0.901489 | 1 |
| 13 | Huhehot | 0.794014 | 0.749271 | 0.79885 | 0.768767 | 0.784616 | 0.579296 | 0.767966 | 0.754124 |
| 14 | Jinan | 0.980467 | 0.721654 | 0.910867 | 0.768498 | 0.91115 | 0.701844 | 1 | 1 |
| 15 | Kunming | 0.548987 | 0.978743 | 0.570825 | 0.977019 | 0.626686 | 0.985638 | 0.608274 | 0.987527 |
| 16 | Lanzhou | 0.703492 | 1.011085 | 0.605101 | 1.079956 | 0.604982 | 0.983986 | 0.568089 | 1.046075 |
| 17 | Lhasa | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | Nanchang | 0.849399 | 0.655427 | 0.83084 | 0.678777 | 0.823516 | 0.5873 | 0.710809 | 0.695209 |
| 19 | Nanjing | 0.999461 | 0.698904 | 0.987955 | 0.797774 | 0.972082 | 0.876073 | 0.970163 | 0.935064 |
| 20 | Nanning | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.928314 | 1 |
| 21 | Shanghai | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | Shenyang | 0.835419 | 0.70751 | 0.823663 | 0.638463 | 0.796233 | 0.70001 | 1 | 0.761222 |
| 23 | Shijiazhuang | 0.605896 | 0.962323 | 0.620055 | 0.953419 | 0.566882 | 0.901437 | 0.560729 | 0.952653 |
| 24 | Taiyuan | 0.58826 | 0.989451 | 0.556767 | 1.031572 | 0.576715 | 0.988437 | 0.518786 | 0.985778 |
| 25 | Tianjin | 0.986385 | 0.752208 | 1.000127 | 0.948332 | 1.013662 | 0.860202 | 1.045958 | 0.854936 |
| 26 | Wuhan | 0.961032 | 1 | 0.929586 | 0.981111 | 1.00099 | 0.941638 | 0.99833 | 0.995729 |
| 27 | Urumqi | 0.91658 | 1 | 0.892165 | 1 | 0.594624 | 0.778365 | 0.947314 | 1 |
| 28 | Xian | 0.72997 | 0.924013 | 0.762626 | 1 | 0.681047 | 0.97043 | 0.614017 | 0.957543 |
| 29 | Xining | 0.805349 | 0.979803 | 0.650721 | 1.007062 | 0.668876 | 0.991888 | 0.627061 | 1.015135 |
| 30 | Yinchuan | 0.697177 | 0.985967 | 0.635244 | 1.040927 | 0.633286 | 0.993166 | 0.621991 | 0.995286 |
| 31 | Zhengzhou | 0.878029 | 0.645468 | 0.905744 | 0.638679 | 0.973174 | 0.63835 | 0.990239 | 0.811945 |
Wilcoxon Test of technology gap for the high-income and upper middle–income countries.
| Total | Production Stage | Treatment Stage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 0.0238** | 0.0016** | 0.0010** |
| 2014 | 0.0787* | 0.0453** | 0.0929* |
| 2015 | 0.0344** | 0.0006** | 0.0003** |
| 2016 | 0.0169** | 0.0065** | 0.0199** |
* less than 10% significant; ** less than 5% significant.