Fig. 3: Environmental and social costs in poverty-stricken counties during the poverty eradication program from 2010 to 2020.

The counties’ performances in terms of sustainability were divided into four groups based on their sustainability indicator scores related to their ecological and environmental status and provision of public services. Each scatter point represents a poverty-stricken county, with the circle around the point indicating the total population of the county in 2020. The methods used to divide the inequality indicators were the same as those used for the sustainability indicators. Ideally, counties should be located in the top right corner, indicating that they were developing with increased sustainability (see a) and reduced inequality (see b) during the poverty eradication program from 2010 to 2020. The top left corner means that the poverty-stricken counties were developing with reduced ecological and environmental sustainability (see a) and lost their advantage in terms of ecological and environmental status compared with the non-poverty-stricken counties (see b). The bottom right corner means that the poverty-stricken counties were developing with reduced sustainability in relation to public services (see a) and increased lags in the provision of public services compared with the non-poverty-stricken counties (see b). The bottom left corner means that the poverty-stricken counties were developing with reduced sustainability in terms of both ecological and environmental status and the provision of public services (see a), and simultaneously lost their advantages in terms of ecological and environmental status and experienced increased lags in the provision of public services compared with the non-poverty-stricken counties (see b). The variations of sustainability scores (see c) and gap indicators scores (see d) along the longitudinal, latitudinal and altitude gradients, and at provincial level (see e).