Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates new urbanization efficiency in Chinese cities, revealing key factors that drive sustainable development.
Rapid urbanization presents a fundamental challenge to global sustainable development, as urban expansion increasingly conflicts with resource constraints, ecological carrying capacity, and carbon emission mandates. Serving as a highly spatially heterogeneous laboratory, China offers a critical context for embedding green development into urban efficiency assessments. This study reconceptualizes new urbanization efficiency (NUE) through a multidimensional framework encompassing resource inputs, coordinated development processes, and sustainable outcomes. Using a panel of 281 prefecture-level cities, we evaluated NUE via a remote-sensing-constrained Super-SBM model, utilizing LISA time paths and an interpretable spatial machine learning framework (GWR-XGBoost-SHAP) to unpack its spatiotemporal dynamics. Key findings indicate: (1) China’s NUE exhibited a fluctuating upward trajectory, transitioning from an east-high/west-low to a south-high/north-low spatial pattern. (2) Spatiotemporal analysis revealed strong spatial inertia and profound path dependency in North China, characterizing it as a persistent low-value basin, whereas southeastern coastal cities demonstrated dynamic, path-breaking trajectories. (3) While green development intensity, industrial upgrading, and technological innovation emerged as primary drivers, they operate through complex nonlinear mechanisms. Specifically, green development and innovation exhibit threshold-triggered synergies, population agglomeration acts as a nonlinear amplifier, and external openness presents context-dependent negative interactions. These findings refine NUE measurement methodologies and provide a transferable analytical framework to inform differentiated, place-based urbanization policies for regions navigating the friction between urban growth and ecological limits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: