Blue City Water Quality Index for 2018

by Ma Jun, Shen Sunan and Zhuge Haijin for the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs - May 2019

Water quality is connected to public health, ecological balance, and social and economic development. In China, local ecology and environment departments and local water and natural resource departments provide the long-term monitoring of surface water and groundwater quality. They continue to expand and optimize their monitoring networks to improve overall management.

Preface

In 2016, the number of water quality monitoring points across China increased from 967 to 2,767. In 2018, China constructed a national automatic monitoring network for surface waters and completed a national groundwater monitoring project, for which 10,169 specialized groundwater monitoring points were constructed to be monitored at the national government level. In 2017, the responsibilities for sampling and testing local water quality were separated such that third-party monitoring agencies now report testing results directly to the central government, rather than through city or provincial governments. This direct reporting system further guarantees the accuracy and authenticity of surface water monitoring data.

The transparency of water quality information is also gradually increasing. More cities actively and regularly disclose water quality data, and the scope of disclosures has expanded: local departments now publish data not only from monitoring points managed by the national government, but also from those managed by provincial, municipal and county-level governments. The content of these disclosures has also increased in detail, from general descriptions of local water quality conditions to the full disclosure of comprehensive monitoring data.

On May 7, for the first time, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) published rankings for 30 of the best and worst performing cities according to the surface water quality monitoring results of 2,050 monitoring points managed by the national government. This new comparative system will undoubtedly motivate the transformation of China’s water management system, with the primary goals of improving water quality and accelerating national water and environmental protection.

The Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE) has collected water quality data issued by government departments across China since 2016, sorting and standardizing data that is then displayed on the Blue Map mobile app. The aggregate data illustrates changes in China’s environmental water quality. As the number of app users grows, more people are able to follow these trends. However, the original data may still be difficult for the public to understand due to its specialized nature.

In 2019, therefore, IPE developed the Blue City Water Quality Index (BCWQI) and scored 337 municipal cities and 25 counties on their overall water quality in 2018. The analysis is based on 600,000 water quality data points gathered the same year. The results produced the Blue City Water Quality Map, now available on the Blue Map app, which helps the public better understand regions with good water quality and those in need of improvement across the country.

Data Sources

Surface Water

This data is primarily based on surface water quality monitoring data published in 2018 by ecology and environment bureaus at all levels of government.^¹It also refers to monitoring data published by local departments of water resources.

Drinking Water Sources

This data is primarily based on 2018 monitoring data for centralized drinking water sources published by ecology and environment bureaus at the provincial, municipal and county level, combined with water source remediation progress reports.

Centralized drinking water sources (水源地) refer specifically to water bodies that support communities of 1,000 people or more in both urban and rural areas.

Groundwater

This data is based on groundwater monitoring data disclosed by ecology and environment bureaus at all levels across the country, as well as groundwater quality status reports listed in the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan.² It also refers to recent academic articles on urban groundwater research.

Score Breakdown

Surface water scores account for 50% of the total score, drinking water scores account for 30% and groundwater scores account for 20%. The distribution reflects the quality and availability of recent data, as well each water sources’ direct influence on the public.

BCWQI (IPE) and CWQI (MEE) Evaluation Comparison

MEE national surface water quality rankings are based on the City Water Quality Index (CWQI). The difference between the Blue City Water Quality Index outlined in this report and the CWQI published by MEE may be understood as follows:

National Blue City Water Quality Map

Figure 1. 2018 Blue City Water Quality Map

The 2018 surface water, drinking water and groundwater quality of 337 municipal level cities and 25 counties are illustrated in the Blue City Water Quality Map.^² Regional colors represent different levels of water quality, from dark blue to dark purple, with dark blue representing the highest quality.

Excellent (dark blue): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) met or surpassed the requirements of Class II water quality, according to MEE environmental quality standards.⁴ Any problems with centralized drinking water sources were rectified.

Good (light blue and green): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) met or surpassed the requirements of Class III water quality. All water sources met the legal standards throughout the year and any environmental problems with centralized drinking water sources were rectified.

Moderate (yellow and dark yellow): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) met or surpassed the requirements of Class IV water quality. Water source pollutants exceeded legal standards once during the year and any environmental problems with centralized drinking water sources were rectified.

Relatively Poor (orange and orange-red): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) met or surpassed the requirements of Class V water quality. Water source pollutants exceeded legal standards three times during the year and not all environmental problems with centralized drinking water sources were rectified.

Poor (dark pink and purple): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) met or surpassed the requirements of Class V water quality. Water source pollutants exceeded legal standards more than three times throughout the year and not all environmental problems with centralized drinking water sources were rectified.

Overall Analysis

Regions with the best water quality are primarily concentrated in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and its surrounding areas, especially in the first and second steps of China’s elevation above sea-level.

Pollution levels in the plains are high. Water quality is relatively poor in the North China Plain, the Northeast China Plain, the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River and the Pearl River Delta.

Water quality to the south of the Yangtze River is better than water quality to the north of the Yangtze River.

Figure 2. Blue City Water Quality Distribution

Excellent overall water quality: 0.00-4.79 points, five cities in total
Good overall water quality: 4.79-10.28 points, 85 cities in total
Moderate overall water quality: 10.28-16.85 points, 133 cities in total
Relatively poor overall water quality: 16.85-24.74 points, 97 cities in total
Poor overall water quality” 24.74-50.00 points, 46 cities in total

Best National Water Quality

Table 1. 2018 Blue City Water Quality Index Top 30

Rank	Province	City		Score		Level
1	Qinghai	Hainan		4.04		Excellent
2	Sichuan	Ganzi		4.11		Excellent
3	Sichuan	Aba		4.42		Excellent
4	Qinghai	Haibei		4.58		Excellent
5	Qinghai	Guoluo		4.72		Excellent
6	Qinghai	Yushu		4.91		Good
7	Sichuan	Guanyuan		4.96		Good
8	Qinghai	Huangnan		5.26		Good
9	Xinjiang	Tacheng		5.62		Good
10	Sichuan	Panzhihua		5.75		Good
11	Hunan		Zhangjiajie		5.99		Good
12	Tibet		Changdu		6.14		Good
13	Xinjiang		Bo’ertala		6.19		Good
14	Xinjiang		Yili		6.28		Good
15	Gansu		Jiayuguan		6.66		Good
16	Sichuan		Liangshan		6.71		Good
17	Guizhou		Qiandongnan		6.74		Good
18	Xinjiang		Akesu		6.85		Good
19	Xinjiang		Changji		6.93		Good
20	Tibet		Ali		7.05		Good
21	Sichuan		Bazhong		7.20		Good
22	Hunan		Chenzhou		7.20		Good
23	Tibet		Linzhi		7.21		Good
24	Gansu		Jinchang		7.21		Good
25	Guangdong		Shaoguan		7.23		Good
26	Zhejiang		Zhoushan		7.28		Good
27	Jiangxi		Shangrao		7.28		Good
28	Gansu		Jiuquan		7.29		Good
29	Guangdong		Yunfu		7.36		Good
30	Guizhou		Anshun		7.46		Good

Lowest National Water Quality

Table 2. 2018 Blue City Water Quality Index Bottom 30

Rank	Province	City		Score	Level
1	Shanxi	Yangquan		41.92	Poor
2	Inner Mongolia	Tongliao		40.81	Poor
3	Guangdong	Shenzhen		39.42	Poor
4	Hebei	Hengshui		38.54	Poor
5	Heilongjiang	Suihua		37.44	Poor
6	Inner Mongolia	Hulunbei’er		35.93	Poor
7	Jilin	Siping		34.59	Poor
8	Liaoning	Anshan		34.43	Poor
9	Shandong	Rizhao		32.91	Poor
10	Hebei	Cangzhou		32.75	Poor
11	Jilin	Changchun		32.42	Poor
12	Inner Mongolia	Wulanchabu		32.39	Poor
13	Liaoning	Yingkou		31.50	Relatively Poor
14	Guangdong	Guangzhou		31.15	Relatively Poor
15	Heilongjiang	Jiamusi		30.99	Relatively Poor
16	Hebei	Langfang		29.97	Relatively Poor
17	Shaanxi		Tongchuan	29.86	Relatively Poor
18	Guangdong		Dongguan	29.42	Relatively Poor
19	Ningxia		Wuzhong	28.90	Relatively Poor
20	Liaoning		Shenyang	28.57	Relatively Poor
21	Shandong		Liaocheng	28.25	Relatively Poor
22	Shandong		Heze	27.93	Relatively Poor
23	Shaanxi		Weinan	27.90	Relatively Poor
24	Shandong		Binzhou	27.66	Relatively Poor
25	Guangdong		Huizhou	27.65	Relatively Poor
26	Hebei		Xingtai	27.60	Relatively Poor
27	Shandong		Dezhou	27.03	Relatively Poor
28	Shandong		Weifang	26.83	Relatively Poor
29	Shanxi		Datong	26.47	Relatively Poor
30	Shanxi		Taiyuan	26.44	Relatively Poor

Figure 3. BCWQI Provincial Average Ranking

According to the average BCWQI scores of provincial jurisdictions, the worst water quality is in Tianjin, Shanxi and Hebei, and the best is in Qinghai, Tibet and Guizhou.

National Surface Water Quality Map

Surface Water Quality Levels

Excellent (dark blue): The average local surface water quality met or surpassed the requirements of Class II water quality.

Good (light blue and green): The average local surface water quality achieved Class III water quality.

General (yellow and dark yellow): The average local surface water quality achieved Class IV water quality.

Relatively Poor (orange and orange-red): The average local surface water quality achieved Class V water quality.

Poor (dark pink and purple): The average local surface water quality did not achieve Class V water quality.

Cities with excellent or good surface water quality comprised 40% of all cities this year, while 21% of cities comprised the lowest rankings.

Table 3. 2018 Top 30 Cities of the National Surface Water Index

Rank Province		City		Score		Level
1	Qinghai	Yushu		2.96		Excellent
2	Hunan	Zhangjiajie		3.32		Excellent
3	Liaoning	Dandong		3.37		Excellent
4	Qinghai	Hainan		3.41		Excellent
5	Xinjiang	Bayinguoleng		3.60		Excellent
6	Xinjiang	Kashen		3.60		Excellent
7	Sichuan	Panzhihua		3.77		Excellent
8	Yunnan	Xishuangbanna		3.79		Excellent
9	Guizhou	Anshun		3.81		Excellent
10	Qinghai	Guoluo		3.83		Excellent
11	Guangdong	Yunfu		3.83		Excellent
12	Yunnan	Diqing		3.85		Excellent
13	Gansu	Jiuquan		3.93		Excellent
14	Qinghai	Haibei		3.98		Excellent
15	Sichuan	Guangyuan		4.05		Excellent
16	Sichuan	Ganzi		4.24		Excellent
17	Shaanxi	Shangluo		4.30		Excellent
18	Guizhou	Qiandongnan		4.31		Excellent
19	Gansu	Longnan		4.32		Excellent
20	Xinjiang	Tulufan		4.36		Excellent
21	Xinjiang		Changji		4.43	Excellent
22	Sichuan		Aba		4.55	Excellent
23	Tibet		Changdu		4.75	Excellent
24	Xinjiang		Yili		4.76	Excellent
25	Shaanxi		Ankang		4.79	Excellent
26	Xinjiang		Wulumuqi		4.80	Excellent
27	Zhejiang		Lishui		4.82	Excellent
28	Shaanxi		Hanzhong		4.84	Excellent
29	Xinjiang		Akesu		4.95	Excellent
30	Gansu		Jiayuguan		4.95	Excellent

Table 4. 2018 Bottom 30 Cities of the National Surface Water Index

Rank Province		City	Score	Level
1	Guangdong	Shenzhen	53.41	Poor
2	Jilin	Siping	42.99	Poor
3	Inner Mongolia	Wulanchabu	42.71	Poor
4	Shandong	Rizhao	40.54	Poor
5	Guangdong	Guangzhou	39.12	Poor
6	Hebei	Hengshui	37.92	Poor
7	Shaanxi	Tongchuan	35.83	Poor
8	Liaoning	Anshan	35.79	Poor
9	Jilin	Changchun	35.71	Poor
10	Liaoning	Shenyang	35.24	Poor
11	Shanxi	Yangquan	33.47	Poor
12	Inner Mongolia	Tongliao	32.97	Poor
13	Hebei	Xingtai	32.69	Poor
14	Guangdong	Huizhou	32.65	Poor
15	Guangdong	Dongguan	32.65	Poor
16	Shanxi	Datong	32.47	Poor
17	Shandong	Liaocheng	32.31	Poor
18	Hebei	Langfang	31.88	Poor
19	Hebei	Cangzhou	30.67	Poor
20	Liaoning	Yingkou	30.02	Poor
21	Ningxia	Wuzhong	28.83	Poor
22	Shandong	Dezhou	28.51	Poor
23	Hainan	Sanya	28.48	Poor
24	Jiangsu	Yangzhou	27.96	Poor
25	Liaoning	Panjin	27.79	Poor
26	Shanxi	Taiyuan	27.46	Poor
27	Shanxi	Yuncheng	27.15	Poor
28	Shanxi	Luliang	27.04	Poor
29	Guangdong	Shantou	26.84	Poor
30	Shandong	Weifang	26.84	Poor

Surface Water Quality Analysis

Since the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution was issued in 2015, China has implemented rigorous water pollution control and national surface water quality has improved each year. In 2018, among the 1,935 surface water quality monitoring points managed at the national level, locations that achieved Class I to Class III water quality comprised 71% of all monitoring points, up 3.1% from 2017. The proportion of Class V poor water quality points fell to 6.7%, down 1.6% from 2017.⁵

In contrast, however, comprehensive data including 9,514 national and non-statecontrolled surface water quality data points collected in the Blue Map Database in 2018 indicate that monitoring points that achieved Class I to Class III water quality comprise only 51.6% of all monitors, while Class V monitors account for 15.2% of the total. It follows that water quality in non-state-controlled areas (mainly in shorter and smaller tributaries and lakes) may be generally inferior to state-controlled sections.

National Drinking Water Quality Map

The water quality index calculations also include 3,708 centralized drinking water sources monitored at the municipal and county level.

Drinking Water Source Quality Levels

Excellent (dark blue): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) met or surpassed the requirements of Class II water quality and all environmental problems have been rectified.

Good (light blue and green): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) meets all legal standards and all environmental problems have been rectified.

General (yellow and dark yellow): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) exceeded pollutant standards once during the year and all environmental problems have been rectified.

Poor (orange and orange-red): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) exceeded pollutant standards three times throughout the year, and at least 50% but less than 100% of environmental problems have been rectified.

Poor (dark pink and purple): The total score (equivalent to the local water quality average) exceeded pollutant standards four or more times throughout the year, and less than 50% of environmental problems have been rectified.

Table 5. 2018 Top 30 Cities of the National Drinking Water Quality Index

Rank	Province	City	Score	Level
1	Tibet	Changdu	0.57	Excellent
2	Xinjiang	Tacheng	1.00	Excellent
2	Tibet	Ali	1.00	Excellent
2	Tibet	Linzhi	1.00	Excellent
5	Hunan	Zhangjiajie	1.57	Excellent
6	Gansu	Jiayuguan	1.87	Excellent
7	Sichuan	Aba	1.92	Excellent
8	Xinjiang	Bayinguoleng	1.93	Excellent
9	Qinghai	Haibei	1.98	Excellent
10	Qinghai	Huangnan	2.11	Excellent
11	Gansu	Linxia	2.20	Excellent
12	Guangdong	Yunfu	2.32	Excellent
13	Yunnan	Xishuangbanna	2.34	Excellent
14	Sichuan	Ganzi	2.36	Excellent
15	Qinghai	Guoluo	2.43	Excellent
16	Sichuan	Guangyuan	2.44	Excellent
17	Yunnan	Nujiang	2.51	Excellent
18	Gansu	Jinchang	2.69	Excellent
19	Sichuan	Panzhihua	2.93	Excellent
20	Xinjiang	Yili	2.96	Excellent
21	Qinghai	Hainan	3.03	Excellent
22	Xinjiang	Akesu	3.18	Excellent
23	Yunnan	Lijiang	3.18	Excellent
24	Xinjiang	Bo’ertala	3.32	Excellent
25	Guizhou	Qiandongnan	3.49	Excellent
26	Guangdong	Meizhou	3.60	Excellent
27	Xinjiang	Changji	3.93	Excellent
28	Gansu	Gannan	4.02	Excellent
29	Zhejiang	Lishui	4.10	Excellent
30	Xinjiang	Wulumuqi	4.21	Excellent

Table 6. 2018 Bottom 30 Cities of the National Drinking Water Quality Index

Rank	Province	City	Score	Level
1	Heilongjiang	Jiamusi	50.00	Poor
1	Inner Mongolia	Hulunbei’er	50.00	Poor
1	Heilongjiang	Suihua	50.00	Poor
1	Shanxi	Yangquan	50.00	Poor
5	Inner Mongolia	Tongliao	47.33	Poor
6	Anhui	Bozhou	35.32	Poor
7	Liaoning	Huludao	34.19	Poor
8	Jilin	Jilin	30.03	Poor
9	Heilongjiang	Daqing	29.36	Poor
10	Shandong	Zaozhuang	27.55	Poor
11	Inner Mongolia	Xilinguolei	26.74	Poor
12	Heilongjiang	Qiqiha’er	26.26	Poor
13	Ningxia	Wuzhong	23.96	Poor
14	Ningxia	Guyuan	22.49	Poor
15	Hebei	Hengshui	21.65	Relatively Poor
16	Anhui	Suzhou	21.30	Relatively Poor
17	Liaoning	Liaoyang	21.07	Relatively Poor
18	Heilongjiang	Qitaihe	20.93	Relatively Poor
19	Liaoning	Fushun	19.98	Relatively Poor
20	Heilongjiang	Heihe	19.89	Relatively Poor
21	Jiangxi	Xinyu	19.70	Relatively Poor
22	Zhejiang	Jiaxing	18.56	Relatively Poor
23	Qinghai	Haixi	17.31	Relatively Poor
24	Anhui	Huainan	16.04	Relatively Poor
25	Guangdong	Dongguan	15.82	Relatively Poor
26	Xinjiang	Kashen	15.81	Relatively Poor
27	Guangxi	Laibin	15.62	Relatively Poor
28	Heilongjiang	Mudanjiang	15.62	Relatively Poor
29	Shanxi	Linfen	15.52	Relatively Poor
30	Shandong	Jining	15.28	Relatively Poor

Drinking Water Quality Analysis

The BCWQI scores of drinking water sources comprehensively examine their water quality classification, the number of times they exceeded pollutant standards, and if they received any environmental remediation.

Judging from the general compliance of drinking water sources, the annual water quality compliance rate of centralized drinking water sources at the county level or above in 2018 (referring to all monitoring up to the standard in 2018) was 91.79%. Some water sources have not completely rectified their environmental problems or have not released the overall improvement in time, which has affected their scores.

The groundwater quality in the Northeast, Northwest, North and Central regions of China was relatively poor.

Groundwater Quality Analysis

China’s Report on the State of the Environment began disclosing groundwater conditions in 2009. The first publication included only results from only 641 monitoring points in eight provinces. In 2018, however, the report included statistical results from 10,168 monitoring points, demonstrating the gradual improvement of information disclosure and the government’s present emphasis on groundwater quality issues. According to China’s Report on the State of the Environment over the years, groundwater quality in the country shows a deteriorating trend. Monitoring points classified as Good or Excellent have declined in both quantity and proportion, while those with Poor or Relatively Poor water quality have increased year by year.

Due to the complex nature of groundwater pollution and the influence of natural environmental factors, most groundwater monitoring projects with pollution above the legal standard may simply have high mineral content near the bottom of the water body. However, some human influence may be seen in indicators such as ammonia nitrogen, which are already deemed major water pollutants alongside iron and manganese, evidencing how manmade pollution has spread to China’s groundwaters.

Because most cities have not developed disclosure systems for groundwater quality information, the groundwater quality map for 2018 involved a comprehensive analysis of official information published over the years, relevant data from academic research, and information for which IPE applied and obtained from multiple management departments. The data from these sources may vary by record year, the depth at which monitors were placed within the groundwater, and the type of groundwater.

Due to the fact that existing groundwater data must be gathered from multiple sources with various record years, depths of monitoring points, and types of groundwater, this first edition of the BCWQI is far from complete. However, as the first map to display groundwater quality for every city, we hope that it can help the public understand the severe status of groundwater pollution and encourage the improvement of groundwater quality monitoring and disclosure platforms.

Appendix: 2018 Blue City Water Quality Index Ranking

Rank Province City Score Level					Rank Province City Score Level
1	Qinghai	Hainan	4.04	Excellent	41	Sichuan	Leshan	8.00	Good
2	Sichuan	Ganzi	4.11	Excellent	42	Gansu	Linxia	8.07	Good
3	Sichuan	Aba	4.42	Excellent	43	Hubei	Shennongjia	8.12	Good
4	Qinghai	Haibei	4.58	Excellent	44	Yunnan	Baoshan	8.14	Good
5	Qinghai	Guoluo	4.73	Excellent	45	Yunnan	Dehong	8.18	Good
6	Qinghai	Yushu	4.91	Good	46	Guangdong	Meizhou	8.19	Good
7	Sichuan	Guangyuan	4.96	Good	47	Tibet	Naqu	8.26	Good
8	Qinghai	Huangnan	5.26	Good	48	Yunnan	Zhaotong	8.26	Good
9	Xinjiang	Tacheng	5.62	Good	49	Jiangxi	Jingdezhen	8.26	Good
10	Sichuan	Panzhihua	5.75	Good	50	Guizhou	Bijie	8.37	Good
11	Hunan	Zhangjiajie	5.99	Good	51	Hunan	Xiangxi	8.44	Good
12	Tibet	Changdu	6.14	Good	52	Zhejiang	Lishui	8.46	Good
13	Xinjiang	Bo’ertala	6.19	Good	53	Tibet	Lasa	8.54	Good
14	Xinjiang	Yili	6.28	Good	54	Sichuan	Nanchong	8.67	Good
15	Gansu	Jiayuguan	6.66	Good	55	Yunnan	Diqing	8.67	Good
16	Sichuan	Liangshan	6.72	Good	56	Shaanxi	Shangluo	8.69	Good
17	Guizhou	Qiandongnan	6.74	Good	57	Guizhou	Qiannan	8.74	Good
18	Xinjiang	Akesu	6.85	Good	58	Tibet	Shannan	8.78	Good
19	Xinjiang	Changji	6.93	Good	59	Sichuan	Yibin	8.78	Good
20	Tibet	Ali	7.05	Good	60	Tibet	Rikaze	8.94	Good
21	Sichuan	Bazhong	7.20	Good	61	Guizhou	Tongren	8.96	Good
22	Hunan	Chenzhou	7.20	Good	62	Liaoning	Dandong	8.97	Good
23	Tibet	Linzhi	7.21	Good	63	Yunnan	Pu'er	9.07	Good
24	Gansu	Jinchang	7.21	Good	64	Jiangxi	Yingtan	9.08	Good
25	Guangdong	Shaoguan	7.23	Good	65	Fujian	Nanping	9.27	Good
26	Zhejiang	Zhoushan	7.28	Good	66	Guizhou	Qianxinan	9.31	Good
27	Jiangxi	Shangrao	7.29	Good	67	Hunan	Huaihua	9.52	Good
28	Gansu	Jiuquan	7.29	Good	68	Sichuan	Guang'an	9.53	Good
29	Guangdong	Yunfu	7.36	Good	69	Fujian	Xiamen	9.55	Good
30	Guizhou	Anshun	7.47	Good	70	Zhejiang	Quzhou	9.57	Good
31	Zhejiang	Jinhua	7.48	Good	71	Hunan	Xiangtan	9.69	Good
32	Yunnan	Nujiang	7.51	Good	72	Hunan	Loudi	9.76	Good
33	Yunnan	Lijiang	7.57	Good	73	Qinghai	Xining	9.83	Good
34	Gansu	Longnan	7.59	Good	74	Xinjiang	Wulumuqi	9.83	Good
35	Gansu	Gannan	7.60	Good	75	Xinjiang	Tumushuke	9.87	Good
36	Shaanxi	Hanzhong	7.81	Good	76	Guangxi	Chongzuo	9.97	Good
37	Sichuan	Mianyang	7.81	Good	77	Guizhou	Zunyi	10.01	Good
38	Sichuan	Ya’an	7.82	Good	78	Hubei	Xianning	10.02	Good
39	Yunnan	Xishuangbanna	7.87	Good	79	Jiangxi	Ji'an	10.02	Good
40		Yunnan Lincang	7.96	Good	80	Xinjiang	Tulufan	10.10	Good

Rank Province City Score Level					Rank Province City Score Level
81	Jiangxi	Jiujiang	10.12	Good	123	Xinjiang	Hetian	11.65	Moderate
82	Sichuan	Deyang	10.14	Good	124	Xinjiang	Hami	11.78	Moderate
83	Guangxi	Guilin	10.15	Good	125	Guangdong	Shanwei	11.81	Moderate
84	Jiangxi	Yichun	10.18	Good	126	Guangxi	Guigang	11.83	Moderate
85	Anhui	Xuancheng	10.19	Good	127	Hubei	Xiantao	11.86	Moderate
86	Hunan	Yueyang	10.21	Good	128	Inner Mongolia	Alashan	11.89	Moderate
87	Hubei	Shiyan	10.22	Good	128	Inner Mongolia	Alashan	11.89	Moderate
88	Guangxi	Wuzhou	10.22	Good	129	Guangxi	Nanning	11.89	Moderate
89	Yunnan	Qujing	10.23	Good	130	Anhui	Chuzhou	11.93	Moderate
90	Hunan	Yongzhou	10.23	Good	131	Henan	Sanmenxia	11.99	Moderate
91	Inner Mongolia	Xing'anmeng	10.52	Moderate	132	Guangdong	Heyuan	12.01	Moderate
91	Inner Mongolia	Xing'anmeng	10.52	Moderate	133	Anhui	Tongling	12.08	Moderate
92	Hunan	Zhuzhou	10.55	Moderate	134	Hunan	Changsha	12.11	Moderate
93	Gansu	Dingxi	10.59	Moderate	135	Jiangxi	Ganzhou	12.20	Moderate
94	Qinghai	Haidong	10.62	Moderate	136	Guangxi	Hechi	12.20	Moderate
95	Jiangxi	Pingxiang	10.65	Moderate	137	Henan	Nanyang	12.22	Moderate
96	Hunan	Shaoyang	10.70	Moderate	138	Guangdong	Zhuhai	12.26	Moderate
97	Guangxi	Fangchenggang	10.71	Moderate	139	Fujian	Longyan	12.30	Moderate
98	Xinjiang	Kelamayi	10.72	Moderate	140	Guangdong	Yangjiang	12.34	Moderate
99	Jiangxi	Fuzhou	10.74	Moderate	141	Hebei	Chengde	12.36	Moderate
100	Xinjiang	Ala’er	10.74	Moderate	142	Guangdong	Zhanjiang	12.39	Moderate
101	Heilongjiang	Daxing’anling	10.75	Moderate	143	Anhui	Liu'an	12.41	Moderate
102	Shaanxi	Baoji	10.77	Moderate	144	Shanxi	Changzhi	12.57	Moderate
103	Ningxia	Shizuishan	10.80	Moderate	145	Gansu	Zhangye	12.65	Moderate
104	Hubei	Enshi	10.89	Moderate	146	Zhejiang	Shaoxing	12.66	Moderate
105	Anhui	Huangshan	10.89	Moderate	147	Heilongjiang	Hegang	12.66	Moderate
106	Gansu	Wuwei	10.94	Moderate	148	Jilin	Yanbian	12.67	Moderate
107	Jilin	Baishan	10.95	Moderate	149	Sichuan	Luzhou	12.71	Moderate
108	Yunnan	Chuxiong	10.95	Moderate	150	Guangdong	Qingyuan	12.71	Moderate
109	Hunan	Changde	10.95	Moderate	151	Hubei	Suizhou	12.75	Moderate
110	Yunnan	Wenshan	10.95	Moderate	152	Hainan	Wuzhishan	12.77	Moderate
111	Fujian	Sanming	10.96	Moderate	153	Hubei	Huanggang	12.81	Moderate
112	Guangdong	Zhaoqing	10.96	Moderate	154	Xinjiang	Bayin’guoleng	12.83	Moderate
113	Shaanxi	Ankang	11.08	Moderate	155	Zhejiang	Taizhou	12.89	Moderate
114	Hunan	Hengyang	11.09	Moderate	156	Shandong	Linyi	12.97	Moderate
115	Sichuan	Dazhou	11.20	Moderate	157	Inner Mongolia	Wuhai	13.00	Moderate
116	Hubei	Xiangyang	11.23	Moderate	157	Inner Mongolia	Wuhai	13.00	Moderate
117	Qinghai	Haixi	11.24	Moderate	158	Shanxi	Zhangzhou	13.01	Moderate
118	Fujian	Ningde	11.33	Moderate	159	Hunan	Yiyang	13.09	Moderate
119	Xinjiang	Wujiaqu	11.36	Moderate	160	Henan	Pingdingshan	13.10	Moderate
120	Guizhou	Liupanshui	11.39	Moderate	161	Guangxi	Laibin	13.19	Moderate
121	Sichuan	Suining	11.41	Moderate	162	Shaanxi	Xianyang	13.20	Moderate
122	Jiangsu Huai'an 11.51 Moderate				163	Fujian	Fuzhou	13.42	Moderate

Rank Province City Score Level					Rank Province City Score Level
164	Jiangsu	Suqian	13.53	Moderate	207	Heilongjiang	Jixi	15.81	Moderate
165	Jilin	Tonghua	13.60	Moderate	208	Inner Mongolia	Bayannao’er	15.83	Moderate
166	Hebei	Zhangjiakou	13.64	Moderate	208	Inner Mongolia	Bayannao’er	15.83	Moderate
167	Shandong	Tai’an	13.74	Moderate	209	Liaoning	Benxi	15.92	Moderate
168	Fujian	Quanzhou	13.76	Moderate	210	Hainan	Dongfang	16.10	Moderate
169	Anhui	Wuhu	13.78	Moderate	211	Anhui	Huainan	16.21	Moderate
170	Hubei	Yichang	13.80	Moderate	212	Hebei	Qinhuangdao	16.21	Moderate
171	Jiangsu	Xuzhou	13.81	Moderate	213	Jilin	Songyuan	16.26	Moderate
172	Chongqing	Chongqing	13.84	Moderate	214	Gansu	Pingliang	16.33	Moderate
173	Gansu	Lanzhou	13.86	Moderate	215	Shaanxi	Yulin	16.34	Moderate
174	Henan	Xuchang	13.89	Moderate	216	Sichuan	Meishan	16.38	Moderate
175	Hubei	Tianmen	13.95	Moderate	217	Jiangxi	Nanchang	16.45	Moderate
176	Hubei	Qianjiang	13.96	Moderate	218	Henan	Zhengzhou	16.45	Moderate
177	Guizhou	Guiyang	14.02	Moderate	219	Inner Mongolia	Huhehaote	16.46	Moderate
178	Jilin	Baicheng	14.11	Moderate	219	Inner Mongolia	Huhehaote	16.46	Moderate
179	Zhejiang	Huzhou	14.12	Moderate	220	Xinjiang	Kezileisu	16.48	Moderate
180	Sichuan	Neijiang	14.23	Moderate	221	Henan	Shangqiu	16.51	Moderate
181	Heilongjiang	Shuangyashan	14.29	Moderate	222	Ningxia	Zhongwei	16.53	Moderate
182	Guangxi	Liuzhou	14.36	Moderate	223	Shandong	Weihai	16.79	Moderate
183	Hainan	Qiongzhong	14.45	Moderate	224	Inner Mongolia	Chifeng	16.79	Moderate
184	Fujian	Zhangzhou	14.51	Moderate	224	Inner Mongolia	Chifeng	16.79	Moderate
185	Shandong	Laiwu	14.51	Moderate	225	Hainan	Danzhou	16.91	Relatively Poor
186	Shandong	Jinan	14.51	Moderate	225	Hainan	Danzhou	16.91	Relatively Poor
187	Sichuan	Chengdu	14.62	Moderate	226	Henan	Zhoukou	16.91	Relatively Poor
188	Sichuan	Zigong	14.66	Moderate	226	Henan	Zhoukou	16.91	Relatively Poor
189	Guangxi	Yulin	14.74	Moderate	227	Henan	Xinyang	16.92	Relatively Poor
190	Henan	Luohe	14.74	Moderate	227	Henan	Xinyang	16.92	Relatively Poor
191	Jiangsu	Nanjing	14.81	Moderate	228	Xinjiang	Kashen	16.99	Relatively Poor
192	Zhejiang	Wenzhou	15.00	Moderate	228	Xinjiang	Kashen	16.99	Relatively Poor
193	Fujian	Putian	15.01	Moderate	229	Heilongjiang	Yichun	17.07	Relatively Poor
194	Liaoning	Chaoyang	15.01	Moderate	229	Heilongjiang	Yichun	17.07	Relatively Poor
195	Hainan	Baoting	15.02	Moderate	230	Zhejiang	Ningbo	17.12	Relatively Poor
196	Hubei	Huangshi	15.04	Moderate	230	Zhejiang	Ningbo	17.12	Relatively Poor
197	Anhui	Anqing	15.08	Moderate	231	Xinjiang	Aleitai	17.23	Relatively Poor
198	Ningxia	Yinchuan	15.19	Moderate	231	Xinjiang	Aleitai	17.23	Relatively Poor
199	Jiangsu	Zhenjiang	15.22	Moderate	232	Anhui	Bangbu	17.35	Relatively Poor
200	Shandong	Jining	15.27	Moderate	232	Anhui	Bangbu	17.35	Relatively Poor
201	Hubei	Ezhou	15.34	Moderate	233	Heilongjiang	Qitaihe	17.37	Relatively Poor
202	Jiangxi	Xinyu	15.44	Moderate	233	Heilongjiang	Qitaihe	17.37	Relatively Poor
203	Guangxi	Baise	15.45	Moderate	234	Henan	Xinxiang	17.51	Relatively Poor
204	Guangxi	Hezhou	15.52	Moderate	234	Henan	Xinxiang	17.51	Relatively Poor
205	Henan	Jiaozuo	15.70	Moderate	235	Anhui	Huaibei	17.61	Relatively Poor
206	Hubei Xiaogan 15.72 Moderate				235	Anhui	Huaibei	17.61	Relatively Poor

Rank Province City Score Level					Rank Province City Score Level
236	Jiangsu	Taizhou	17.70	Relatively Poor	257	Hainan	Chengmai	19.10	Relatively Poor
237	Inner Mongolia	Baotou	17.84	Relatively Poor	258	Guangdong	Maoming	19.24	Relatively Poor
238	Henan	Luoyang	17.95	Relatively Poor	259	Hubei	Jingzhou	19.33	Relatively Poor
239	Inner Mongolia	E’erduosi	17.97	Relatively Poor	260	Shaanxi	Yan'an	19.38	Relatively Poor
240	Gansu	Baiyin	18.07	Relatively Poor	261	Liaoning	Tieling	19.41	Relatively Poor
241	Henan	Zhumadian	18.08	Relatively Poor	262	Liaoning	Liaoyang	19.42	Relatively Poor
242	Guangxi	Beihai	18.16	Relatively Poor	263	Hainan	Wanning	19.43	Relatively Poor
243	Ningxia	Guyuan	18.23	Relatively Poor	264	Hebei	Handan	19.57	Relatively Poor
244	Yunnan	Yuxi	18.27	Relatively Poor	265	Guangdong	Jiangmen	19.58	Relatively Poor
245	Anhui	Fuyang	18.36	Relatively Poor	266	Hebei	Baoding	19.81	Relatively Poor
246	Zhejiang	Hangzhou	18.43	Relatively Poor	267	Anhui	Chizhou	19.86	Relatively Poor
247	Heilongjiang	Heihe	18.49	Relatively Poor	268	Jilin	Liaoyuan	19.94	Relatively Poor
248	Beijing	Beijing	18.60	Relatively Poor	269	Heilongjiang	Ha’erbin	20.06	Relatively Poor
249	Henan	Jiyuan	18.63	Relatively Poor	270	Shanxi	Jincheng	20.11	Relatively Poor
250	Hainan	Lingao	18.76	Relatively Poor	271	Shandong	Yantai	20.46	Relatively Poor
251	Yunnan	Dali	18.77	Relatively Poor	272	Yunnan	Honghe	20.50	Relatively Poor
252	Guangxi	Qinzhou	18.82	Relatively Poor	273	Liaoning	Dalian	20.53	Relatively Poor
253	Guangdong	Foshan	18.85	Relatively Poor	274	Shanxi	Jinzhong	20.54	Relatively Poor
254	Jiangsu	Suzhou	18.88	Relatively Poor	275	Guangdong	Zhongshan	20.60	Relatively Poor
255	Henan	Hebi	18.90	Relatively Poor	276	Henan	Kaifeng	20.65	Relatively Poor
256	Zhejiang Jiaxing 19.09 Relatively Poor				277	Hubei	Jingmen	20.67	Relatively Poor

Rank Province City Score Level

278

Jiangsu

Yancheng

20.83

Relatively

Poor

299

Hainan

Sansha

22.67

Relatively

Poor

279

Henan

Anyang

20.89

Relatively

Poor

300

Liaoning

Fushun

22.79

Relatively

Poor

280

Jiangsu

Lianyungang

20.95

Relatively

Poor

301

Shanxi

Luliang

22.81

Relatively

Poor

281

Jiangsu

Changzhou

21.13

Relatively

Poor

302

Guangdong

Shantou

23.10

Relatively

Poor

282

Shanghai

21.40

Relatively

Poor

303

Xinjiang

Shihezi

23.10

Relatively

Poor

283

Yunnan

Kunming

21.43

Relatively

Poor

304

Shanxi

Shuozhou

23.12

Relatively

Poor

284

Hebei

Tangshan

21.48

Relatively

Poor

305

Guangdong

Jieyang

23.12

Relatively

Poor

285

Gansu

Qingyang

21.48

Relatively

Poor

306

Guangdong

Chaozhou

23.19

Relatively

Poor

286

Heilongjiang

Qiqiha’er

21.49

Relatively

Poor

307

Jiangsu

Nantong

23.26

Relatively

Poor

287

Liaoning

Fuxin

21.50

Relatively

Poor

308

Shanxi

Linfen

23.32

Relatively

Poor

288

Heilongjiang

Mudanjiang

21.52

Relatively

Poor

309

Shaanxi

Xi'an

23.41

Relatively

Poor

289

Shandong

Dongying

21.56

Relatively

Poor

310

Liaoning

Panjin

23.43

Relatively

Poor

290

Sichuan

Ziyang

21.63

Relatively

Poor

311

Inner Mongolia

Xilinguolei

23.54

Relatively

Poor

291

Hainan

Baisha

21.71

Relatively

Poor

312

Shandong

Zaozhuang

23.63

Relatively

Poor

292

Gansu

Tianshui

21.76

Relatively

Poor

313

Tianjin

23.63

Relatively

Poor

293

Liaoning

Jinzhou

21.98

Relatively

Poor

314

Hubei

Wuhan

23.97

Relatively

Poor

294

Anhui

Ma’anshan

22.05

Relatively

Poor

315

Hainan

Haikou

24.26

Relatively

Poor

295

Shandong

Zibo

22.28

Relatively

Poor

316

Henan

Puyang

24.34

Relatively

Poor

296

Jiangsu

Wuxi

22.32

Relatively

Poor

317

Liaoning

Huludao

24.48

Relatively

Poor

297

Hebei

Shijiazhuang

22.53

Relatively

Poor

318

Jilin

24.74

Relatively

Poor

298

Anhui Suzhou 22.58 Relatively

Poor

319

Jiangsu

Yangzhou

24.85

Poor

320

Shandong

Qingdao

25.27

Poor

321

Hainan

Sanya

25.41

Poor

Rank Province City Score Level

322

Anhui

Hefei

25.55

Poor

344

Hebei

Langfang

29.97

Poor

323

Anhui

Bozhou

25.71

Poor

345

Hainan

Wenchang

30.08

Poor

324

Heilongjiang

Daqing

25.83

Poor

346

Hainan

Qionghai

30.78

Poor

325

Shanxi

Yuncheng

26.10

Poor

347

Heilongjiang

Jiamusi

30.99

Poor

326

Shanxi

Taiyuan

26.44

Poor

348

Guangdong

Guangzhou

31.15

Poor

327

Shanxi

Datong

26.47

Poor

349

Liaoning

Yingkou

31.50

Poor

328

Hainan

Ledong

26.50

Poor

350

Inner Mongolia

Wulanchabu

32.39

Poor

329

Shandong

Weifang

26.83

Poor

330

Shandong

Dezhou

27.03

Poor

351

Jilin

Changchun

32.42

Poor

331

Hainan

Lingshui

27.14

Poor

352

Hebei

Cangzhou

32.75

Poor

332

Hainan

Changjiang

27.48

Poor

353

Shandong

Rizhao

32.91

Poor

333

Hebei

Xingtai

27.60

Poor

354

Liaoning

Anshan

34.43

Poor

334

Guangdong

Huizhou

27.65

Poor

355

Jilin

Siping

34.59

Poor

335

Shandong

Binzhou

27.66

Poor

356

Hainan

Tunchang

35.01

Poor

336

Shaanxi

Weinan

27.90

Poor

357

Inner Mongolia

Hulunbei’er

35.93

Poor

337

Shandong

Heze

27.93

Poor

338

Shandong

Liaocheng

28.25

Poor

358

Heilongjiang

Suihua

37.44

Poor

339

Liaoning

Shenyang

28.57

Poor

359

Hebei

Hengshui

38.54

Poor

340

Hainan

Ding'an

28.64

Poor

360

Guangdong

Shenzhen

39.42

Poor

341

Ningxia

Wuzhong

28.90

Poor

361

Inner Mongolia

Tongliao

40.81

Poor

342

Guangdong

Dongguan

29.42

Poor

343

Shaanxi

Tongchuan

29.86

Poor

362

Shanxi Yangquan 41.92 Poor

Disclaimer:

This report has been translated by IPE for the purposes of reference only. Any discrepancies or differences created in the translation are not binding and have no legal effect. If any such questions arise, please refer to the Chinese version of the document, which is the official version of the document.

For a complete list of sources, please refer to the Chinese version of this report.

Notes :

1 Some regions lack data from 2018, in which case data from 2017 or earlier was used instead.
2 Some regions have not published data on their present status, in which case 2020 water quality targets were used instead.
3 Including counties under provincial jurisdiction and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps.
4 MEE classifies surface water and groundwater quality into five standards, with Class I as the highest quality. For more details, please refer to the MEE documents:
http://kjs.mee.gov.cn/hjbhbz/bzwb/shjbh/shjzlbz/200206/t20020601_66497.shtml
http://kjs.mee.gov.cn/hjbhbz/bzwb/shjbh/shjzlbz/199410/t19941001_66500.shtml

5 2018 China Report on the State of the Environment http://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/zghjzkgb/lnzghjzkgb/

Blue City Water Quality Index : Pdf document

Blue City Water Quality Index for 2018

by Ma Jun, Shen Sunan and Zhuge Haijin for the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs - May 2019

Preface

Data Sources

Score Breakdown

BCWQI (IPE) and CWQI (MEE) Evaluation Comparison

National Blue City Water Quality Map

Overall Analysis

Best National Water Quality

Lowest National Water Quality

National Surface Water Quality Map

Surface Water Quality Levels

Table 3. 2018 Top 30 Cities of the National Surface Water Index

Table 4. 2018 Bottom 30 Cities of the National Surface Water Index

Surface Water Quality Analysis

National Drinking Water Quality Map

Drinking Water Source Quality Levels

Table 5. 2018 Top 30 Cities of the National Drinking Water Quality Index

Table 6. 2018 Bottom 30 Cities of the National Drinking Water Quality Index

Drinking Water Quality Analysis

Groundwater Quality Analysis

Appendix: 2018 Blue City Water Quality Index Ranking

Liens vers livres