## 4 Results and Discussions
### Measurement Analysis of the Coordination Degree  
China's coordination degree in regard to carbon emissions, economic development, and environmental protection generally displayed a slow upward trend. The magnitude of such an increase was relatively small, with the coordination degree generally displaying a steady rising trend. The average coordination degree was 0.669, suggesting that such a coordination development remains at the primitive level (Table 6). Specifically, the coordination degree decreased slightly between 2013 and 2015, suggesting a slight decrease in the level of coordination development. From the perspective of coordination, the coordination degree of most provinces displayed a slow upward trend. Only a few provinces showed a slight declining trend, suggesting that the coordination level of most provinces generally exhibited a steady rising trend. According to the average value of the coordination degree, only Beijing has achieved a good level of such a coordination development. Seven provinces, including Jilin, Zhejiang, and Guangdong, have reached the intermediate level of coordination development, and they are also in the first echelon of the entire country. Seventeen provinces, including Heilongjiang, Liaoning, and Inner Mongolia, are at the primitive level of coordination development. Xinjiang, Guizhou, Yunnan, and the other five provinces are at the lowest level of coordination development. For the present study, there are no provinces in a state of dysregulation or recession. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Province**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**The First Stage DEA Measurement Results**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**The Third Stage DEA Measurement Results**} \\  & **Comprehensive** & **Pure Technical** & **Scale** & **Comprehensive** & **Pure Technical** & **Scale** \\  & **Efficiency** & **Efficiency** & **Efficiency** & **Efficiency** & **Efficiency** & **Efficiency** \\  & **(TE)** & **(PTE)** & **(SE)** & **(TE)** & **(PTE)** & **(SE)** \\ \hline Heilongjiang & 0.459 & 0.512 & 0.898 & 0.425 & 0.691 & 0.617 \\ Jilin & 0.433 & 0.510 & 0.849 & 0.453 & 0.877 & 0.516 \\ Liaoning & 0.473 & 0.489 & 0.967 & 0.503 & 0.705 & 0.712 \\ Inner Mongolia & 0.439 & 0.492 & 0.894 & 0.405 & 0.678 & 0.597 \\ Shaamxi & 0.474 & 0.518 & 0.914 & 0.503 & 0.812 & 0.617 \\ Ningxia & 0.329 & 0.746 & 0.444 & 0.161 & 0.673 & 0.240 \\ Gansu & 0.351 & 0.458 & 0.766 & 0.310 & 0.741 & 0.419 \\ Xinjiang & 0.406 & 0.515 & 0.791 & 0.312 & 0.641 & 0.491 \\ Qinghai & 0.320 & 0.964 & 0.332 & 0.153 & 0.827 & 0.191 \\ Sichuan & 0.558 & 0.576 & 0.969 & 0.608 & 0.772 & 0.784 \\ Chongqing & 0.540 & 0.610 & 0.882 & 0.511 & 0.893 & 0.572 \\ Guizhou & 0.415 & 0.490 & 0.844 & 0.356 & 0.682 & 0.517 \\ Yunnan & 0.381 & 0.428 & 0.890 & 0.375 & 0.649 & 0.578 \\ Guangxi & 0.432 & 0.475 & 0.910 & 0.503 & 0.835 & 0.603 \\ Anhui & 0.392 & 0.424 & 0.925 & 0.437 & 0.678 & 0.645 \\ Zhejiang & 0.707 & 0.757 & 0.939 & 0.759 & 0.918 & 0.824 \\ Fujian & 0.489 & 0.511 & 0.959 & 0.538 & 0.754 & 0.715 \\ Guangdong & 0.870 & 0.921 & 0.945 & 0.929 & 0.951 & 0.976 \\ Hainan & 0.536 & 0.944 & 0.570 & 0.303 & 0.931 & 0.327 \\ Beijing & 0.821 & 0.874 & 0.935 & 0.680 & 0.873 & 0.768 \\ Tianjin & 0.637 & 0.745 & 0.857 & 0.498 & 0.875 & 0.570 \\ Hebei & 0.442 & 0.450 & 0.982 & 0.503 & 0.651 & 0.774 \\ Shanxi & 0.400 & 0.454 & 0.881 & 0.349 & 0.599 & 0.582 \\ Shanghai & 0.749 & 0.784 & 0.953 & 0.562 & 0.765 & 0.732 \\ Jiangsu & 0.726 & 0.785 & 0.930 & 0.818 & 0.876 & 0.930 \\ Jiangxi & 0.549 & 0.599 & 0.915 & 0.567 & 0.935 & 0.608 \\ Shandong & 0.533 & 0.583 & 0.918 & 0.655 & 0.714 & 0.916 \\ Henan & 0.428 & 0.446 & 0.962 & 0.524 & 0.641 & 0.816 \\ Hubei & 0.564 & 0.585 & 0.965 & 0.649 & 0.859 & 0.753 \\ Hunan & 0.571 & 0.590 & 0.968 & 0.638 & 0.842 & 0.754 \\ Average & 0.514 & 0.608 & 0.865 & 0.500 & 0.778 & 0.638 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Carbon emission efficiency during China’s first and third stages (2009–2018 annual average values).