{"title":"导航生态文明:中国多中心环境治理与政策监管框架","authors":"Cheng Zhou , Wanhao Zhang , Clare Richardson-Barlow","doi":"10.1016/j.erss.2025.104347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Amidst global environmental and energy crises, China has institutionalized its Ecological Civilisation as a transformative governance paradigm, synergising multiple policy instruments with environmental modernization. This paper utilises Grounded Theory to systematically analyse 56 environmental policies with significant energy governance components encompassing 510,000 words, identifying three primary categories in China's environmental policy pathways: pollution control, carbon reduction, and green expansion. Further analysis using the Institutional Grammar Tool deconstructs the regulatory components of these pathways. The analysis reveals a tripartite regulatory framework: (1) AIC (Attributes, Aim, Conditions) strategic policy statements (41 % of policies), which establish both implementation flexibility and structured policy experimentation, enabling local governments to adapt and innovate while ensuring the central objectives; (2) ADIC (Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Conditions) normative statements (44 %), balancing market autonomy with state direction; and (3) ADICO (Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Conditions, Or Else) rule-based statements (15 %), enforcing stringent compliance in high-stakes sectors such as fossil fuel industries. The findings demonstrate how China's polycentric governance model strategically calibrates regulatory rigidity and flexibility, challenging conventional dichotomies between command-and-control and market-based approaches. The study advances theoretical debates on modern environmentalism and institutional design while providing actionable insights for environmental and energy policymakers navigating the trade-offs between central stringent regulation and local adaptation and flexibility. By elucidating the textual architecture of environmental regulation, particularly in energy-related policies accounting for a significant portion of China's environmental mandates, this research contributes a novel policy science perspective to environmental and energy governance systems, with implications for both hierarchical and decentralized governance systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48384,"journal":{"name":"Energy Research & Social Science","volume":"128 ","pages":"Article 104347"},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating ecological civilisation: Polycentric environmental governance and policy regulatory framework in China\",\"authors\":\"Cheng Zhou , Wanhao Zhang , Clare Richardson-Barlow\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.erss.2025.104347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Amidst global environmental and energy crises, China has institutionalized its Ecological Civilisation as a transformative governance paradigm, synergising multiple policy instruments with environmental modernization. This paper utilises Grounded Theory to systematically analyse 56 environmental policies with significant energy governance components encompassing 510,000 words, identifying three primary categories in China's environmental policy pathways: pollution control, carbon reduction, and green expansion. Further analysis using the Institutional Grammar Tool deconstructs the regulatory components of these pathways. The analysis reveals a tripartite regulatory framework: (1) AIC (Attributes, Aim, Conditions) strategic policy statements (41 % of policies), which establish both implementation flexibility and structured policy experimentation, enabling local governments to adapt and innovate while ensuring the central objectives; (2) ADIC (Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Conditions) normative statements (44 %), balancing market autonomy with state direction; and (3) ADICO (Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Conditions, Or Else) rule-based statements (15 %), enforcing stringent compliance in high-stakes sectors such as fossil fuel industries. The findings demonstrate how China's polycentric governance model strategically calibrates regulatory rigidity and flexibility, challenging conventional dichotomies between command-and-control and market-based approaches. The study advances theoretical debates on modern environmentalism and institutional design while providing actionable insights for environmental and energy policymakers navigating the trade-offs between central stringent regulation and local adaptation and flexibility. By elucidating the textual architecture of environmental regulation, particularly in energy-related policies accounting for a significant portion of China's environmental mandates, this research contributes a novel policy science perspective to environmental and energy governance systems, with implications for both hierarchical and decentralized governance systems.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Research & Social Science\",\"volume\":\"128 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104347\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Research & Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629625004281\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Research & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629625004281","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Navigating ecological civilisation: Polycentric environmental governance and policy regulatory framework in China
Amidst global environmental and energy crises, China has institutionalized its Ecological Civilisation as a transformative governance paradigm, synergising multiple policy instruments with environmental modernization. This paper utilises Grounded Theory to systematically analyse 56 environmental policies with significant energy governance components encompassing 510,000 words, identifying three primary categories in China's environmental policy pathways: pollution control, carbon reduction, and green expansion. Further analysis using the Institutional Grammar Tool deconstructs the regulatory components of these pathways. The analysis reveals a tripartite regulatory framework: (1) AIC (Attributes, Aim, Conditions) strategic policy statements (41 % of policies), which establish both implementation flexibility and structured policy experimentation, enabling local governments to adapt and innovate while ensuring the central objectives; (2) ADIC (Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Conditions) normative statements (44 %), balancing market autonomy with state direction; and (3) ADICO (Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Conditions, Or Else) rule-based statements (15 %), enforcing stringent compliance in high-stakes sectors such as fossil fuel industries. The findings demonstrate how China's polycentric governance model strategically calibrates regulatory rigidity and flexibility, challenging conventional dichotomies between command-and-control and market-based approaches. The study advances theoretical debates on modern environmentalism and institutional design while providing actionable insights for environmental and energy policymakers navigating the trade-offs between central stringent regulation and local adaptation and flexibility. By elucidating the textual architecture of environmental regulation, particularly in energy-related policies accounting for a significant portion of China's environmental mandates, this research contributes a novel policy science perspective to environmental and energy governance systems, with implications for both hierarchical and decentralized governance systems.
期刊介绍:
Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side and social processes and influences - including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies - on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is relevant for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers.
Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) provides an interdisciplinary forum to discuss how social and technical issues related to energy production and consumption interact. Energy production, distribution, and consumption all have both technical and human components, and the latter involves the human causes and consequences of energy-related activities and processes as well as social structures that shape how people interact with energy systems. Energy analysis, therefore, needs to look beyond the dimensions of technology and economics to include these social and human elements.