The EWM-Based Evaluation of Healthy City Construction Levels in East China under the Concept of “Making Improvements Is More Important Than Reaching Standards”

Haibo Li, Jiaming Guo, Chen Pan (), Jiawei Wu and Xiaodong Liu ()
Additional contact information
Haibo Li: Architecture and Civil Engineering Institute, Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology, Maoming 525000, China
Jiaming Guo: Architecture and Civil Engineering Institute, Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology, Maoming 525000, China
Chen Pan: Architecture and Civil Engineering Institute, Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology, Maoming 525000, China
Jiawei Wu: Architecture and Civil Engineering Institute, Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology, Maoming 525000, China
Xiaodong Liu: College of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou 510225, China

Sustainability, 2024, vol. 16, issue 10, 1-12

Abstract: In order to effectively identify the shortcomings and potential health risks in the construction of healthy cities and achieve sustainable development, relevant improvement strategies have been formulated. According to the National Healthy City Evaluation Index System, with the concept of “Making improvements is more important than reaching standards”, the healthy city construction levels of the first batch of 13 cities in East China were evaluated by combining entropy weight and linear coefficient weighting from the five dimensions of environment, population, society, service, and culture, based on the data of statistical yearbooks, bulletins, and government websites. The results show that Suzhou, Jiading, Wuxi, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Tongxiang, and Zhenjiang are in the first-grade group, Xiamen, Yantai, Jinan, and Weihai are in the second-grade group, and Yichun and Ma’anshan are in the third-grade group. There is also more significant heterogeneity in the healthy environment indicator among the 13 cities; at the same time, there are specific differences in the healthy culture indicator, and there are slight differences in the indicators of healthy population, society, and service. The study reveals the gaps and problems in the construction of healthy cities. It proposes constructive ideas for promoting follow-up improvement of “making up for shortcomings and strengthening the weaknesses”.

Keywords: “making improvements is more important than reaching standards”; healthy city; construction level; weight; index evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4311/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4311/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:4311-:d:1398152

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().