中英经济–能源–环境系统因果网络联动分析——基于偏交叉映射方法

Analysis of Causal Network Linkage of Economic, Energy and Environmental Systems in China and the UK—Based on Partial Cross Mapping Method

摘要: 在全球碳中和背景下，本研究对比分析了中英两国3E (经济–能源–环境)系统的协同发展机制。研究创新性地采用偏交叉映射因果推断方法识别变量之间的直接因果关系，以及利用复杂网络理论构建1990~2024年3E系统因果网络模型。本研究核心方法论贡献在于为3E系统研究提供了“因果识别–网络构建–风险量化”的一体化分析框架。研究发现，中国系统呈现能源驱动经济特征，但环境调节能力较弱；英国清洁能源与生态环境协同显著，但高技术产业连接不足。中国系统性风险为0.5397高于英国(0.4948)，其面临的系统性风险挑战更为严峻。此外，两国的网络中介中心性普遍低于0.15，未来需要加强要素之间的联动性。本研究解释了中英两国3E系统的内部联动关系及其风险影响，为全球气候治理提供了理论依据与实践价值。

Abstract: Under the backdrop of global carbon neutrality, this study conducts a comparative analysis of the coordinated development mechanisms of the 3E (Economy-Energy-Environment) systems in China and the UK. The research innovatively employs a partial cross mapping causality inference method to identify direct causal relationships among variables and utilizes complex network theory to construct a causal network model for the 3E system spanning from 1990 to 2024. The core methodological contribution of this study lies in providing an integrated analytical framework encompassing “causal identification-network construction-risk quantification” for research on the 3E system. The findings reveal that China’s system exhibits an energy-driven economic characteristic; however, its capacity for environmental regulation is relatively weak. In contrast, while there is significant coordination between clean energy and ecological environment in the UK, connections within high-tech industries are insufficient. The systemic risk associated with China’s system is measured at 0.5397, which is higher than that of the UK at 0.4948, indicating that China faces more severe challenges related to systemic risks. Furthermore, both countries demonstrate a network intermediary centrality generally below 0.15, suggesting that future efforts should focus on strengthening interactivity among elements within these systems. This study elucidates the internal linkage relationships and risk impacts inherent in the 3E systems of China and the UK, thereby providing both theoretical foundations and practical value for global climate governance.