Evaluation and Comparative Analysis on EHC

Abstract

According to the evaluation indicator system and the mathematic model of EHC, the evaluation and analysis are made on EHC in 2012. Table 12.1 lists the rankings and scores of EHC in 2012 and Fig. 12.1 displays the EHC scores of the six continents as well as the top three countries of each continent in 2012.

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Evaluation Results of EHC

According to the evaluation indicator system and the mathematic model of EHC, the evaluation and analysis are made on EHC in 2012. Table 12.1 lists the rankings and scores of EHC in 2012 and Fig. 12.1 displays the EHC scores of the six continents as well as the top three countries of each continent in 2012.

Table 12.1 Scores and rankings of EHC as well as the tertiary and individual indicators in 2012

Fig. 12.1

EHC scores of six continents & top three countries of each continent in 2012

According to Table 12.1, the countries with EHC ranking 1st–10th include Singapore, Costa Rica, Gabon, Uruguay, Myanmar, Albania, Ecuador, Brazil, El Salvador and Sri Lanka; the 11th–20th rankings are Georgia, Peru, Panama, Congo, Rep., Norway, Chile, Angola, Paraguay, Guatemala and Philippines; the 21st–30th rankings are Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Turkey, Armenia, Venezuela, RB, Cameroon, Algeria, Tajikistan and Switzerland; and the bottom ten countries are Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan, Mauritius, Cote d’Ivoire, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Madagascar, Niger and Lesotho.

In 2012, the highest score of EHC is 80.3 points, the lowest score is 23.8, the average score is 65.1 and the standard deviation is 8.9. The highest score and the lowest score differ greatly with the margin of 56.5 points. 87 countries score higher than the average point. It indicates that the overall level of EHC is rather high and the differences are very little among the countries.

The scores of EHC show olive-shaped distribution. Only one country scores above 80 points; 39 countries score 70–80; 66 countries score 60–70; 17 countries 50–60; 8 countries score 40–50; 2 countries score below 40 points, of 29.2 and 23.8.

The countries with higher EHC are mainly developing countries. Among the 10 countries ranking ahead, 9 are developing countries; among the 30 countries ranking ahead, 27 are developing countries. Overall, the developed countries rank at the middle level on EHC, with 17 countries ranking No. 41–80, accounting for half of the total developed countries. And most developing countries still have relatively low EHC, ranking behind.

To compare and analyze the EHC levels of all the countries in a more visual way, the EHC scores are displayed in Fig. 12.2. According to Fig. 12.2, the EHC scores of the countries are concentrated, mostly in 5060–70 80 points (up to 116 105 countries, accounting for 87.2278.95 % of the total), showing little differences among the countries except for individual countries. Among the developed countries, Norway Singapore scores the highest, 74.180.3 points; among the developing countries, Costa Rica scores the highest, 77.0 68.5 points. They have little difference.

Fig. 12.2

Rankings and scores of EHC in 2012

2 Factor Scores and Contribution Rates of EHC

Table 12.1 lists the evaluation results of the subordinate indicators of EHC and displays the scores and rankings of two pillars and ten individual indicators of EHC in 2012 so as to analyze the influences of the tertiary and individual indicators on EHC of the countries.

On pillars, the indicator of economy and environment enjoys the highest standard deviation, hitting 14.0, and the indicator of population and environment has the standard deviation of 9.4, indicating that the indicator of economy and environment has larger differences among the countries and is the most primary factor causing EHC differences among the countries. The indicator of population and environment has little influence on EHC differences among the countries. Overall, the differences of EHC among the countries are mainly caused by the differences of economy and environment.

On individual indicators, percentage of population with access to Improved sanitation facilities enjoys the highest standard deviation, hitting 29.1, indicating that this indicator has the largest differences among the countries and is the most primary factor causing EHC differences among the countries. Motor vehicles per 1,000 people, renewable internal freshwater resources per capita, energy consumption per capita, sulfur dioxide emissions per unit of GDP and energy consumption per unit of GDP also have high standard deviation, all higher than 18.0, which all contribute a lot to EHC differences among the countries. The other indicators have lower standard deviation, indicating they have less influence on EHC differences among the countries.

To analyze the contribution of the pillars to EHC, we could firstly multiply the scores of the pillars by respective weights, then convert them into the scores at sub-index and finally divide them by the total score of sub-index to get the contribution rates of the pillars. Thus, we could find the contribution of each pillar to the sub-index more visually, as shown in Fig. 12.3.

Fig. 12.3

Contribution rates of pillars of EHC in 2012

According to Fig. 12.3, population and environment has slightly higher contribution rate to EHC than economy and environment: the former having the average contribution rate of 53.4 % and the latter having the average contribution rate of 46.6 %. Therefore, to enhance EHC, the countries shall focus more on economy and environment and population and environment.