麦肯锡中国城市可持续发展报告(16)

10Figure 7The east outperformed the central and the west in all categories at 2011 with the gap enlarging in the past yearsEastCentral

2011 category performance

Index

63.9

46.752.4

43.238.532.168.648.470.7

51.443.529.437.467.047.450.9%West2008-11 growthNational2011 overall performanceIndex65.944.751.037.7

Society

2.01.52.31.9

Top 3 cities

EastZhuhai, Beijing, ShaoguanEconomy11.511.18.310.4Resource-0.32.00.20.6Environment3.03.02.52.93.03.22.62.9Beijing, Shanghai, Shaoxing

Changsha, Hefei,

Zhengzhou

Huhehaote,

Kunming, Yan’anNingde, Beijing, ZhangzhouShangluo, Hefei, ChangchunYan’an,Xi’an, BaojiShenzhen, Zhuhai,XiamenChangsha, Nanchang, TaiyuanKaramay, Kunming, GuiyangCentralYangquan, Daqing, HuangshiWestKaramay, Panzhihua, Xi’an

SOURCE: McKinsey analysis; UCI

Gap with global benchmarks

We selected 11 global cities as benchmarks including Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong,

Copenhagen, London, Berlin, Stockholm, Prague, Paris, New York and Warsaw. Broadly speaking, most Chinese cities, such as Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Changsha, are catching up with our benchmark global cities, while several cities, including Shanghai, Ningbo and Dalian, have been gradually falling behind in recent years (Figure 9). Chinese cities are slowly narrowing the gap with the global benchmark cities. The pace at which they are catching-up increased from 0.4% to around 1% during 2008-2011.

The main gaps between Chinese cities and their international counterparts are in social, economic and environmental categories (Figure 10), and more specifically in social and environmental cleanliness categories, such as urban employment, per capita doctor numbers, industrial air pollution, air qualified days, and waste

water treatment. We arrived at this conclusion by comparing each indicator of the

sub-categories. Meanwhile, a comparison of category indicators shows that our global benchmark cities perform better in all society indicators than our leading Chinese cities.