★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Open research. Global perspectives.
editor@theamericanjournals.com Publisher Home ↗
Political Science Law OPEN ACCESS

Measuring the Sustainability of Open Sharing for Scientific Instruments in China: An Ascendency Analysis Using Benchmark Use-Time Data

Dr. Wei Chen
School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Prof. Eleanor Vance
Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Jia Li
National Science and Technology Infrastructure Center, Ministry of Science and Technology, Beijing, China
tajpslc 2025
VOL. 7 / NO. 10 OCTOBER
FULL TEXT PP. 01-14
DOWNLOAD PDF

View all articles in this issue ↗

VOLUME 7
ISSUE 10
YEAR 2025
PAGES 01-14
RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Abstract

Background: The open sharing of large-scale scientific instruments is critical for national innovation and reflects a core principle of the circular economy. While China has invested heavily in creating a national instrument sharing network, methods for evaluating the overall health and sustainability of this complex ecosystem are underdeveloped, often focusing on simple efficiency metrics while ignoring system-wide resilience.

Methods: This study introduces Ecological Network Analysis (ENA) as a novel framework to assess the sustainability of China's scientific instrument sharing system. We constructed a network model representing the flow of instrument use-time among three key sectors (universities, public research institutes, and enterprises) using benchmark data from the National Network for Scientific Instrument Sharing from 2020 to 2024. We then calculated the system's ascendency—a comprehensive, information-theory-based measure that quantifies the balance between organized efficiency (growth and development) and redundant flexibility (resilience).

Results: The analysis revealed a steady increase in the system's total sharing activity (Total System Throughput) over the five-year period. However, the ratio of ascendency to total development capacity (A/C) showed a significant upward trend, while the overhead-to-capacity ratio (Φ/C) declined. This indicates that the network is evolving towards higher efficiency but at the cost of decreasing resilience. Public research institutes were identified as the keystone sector, contributing most significantly to the network's organized structure.

Conclusion: Applying ascendency analysis provides a holistic, quantitative measure of the sustainability of resource-sharing networks. Our findings suggest that current policies governing China's instrument sharing system may be prioritizing short-term efficiency gains over long-term systemic resilience. We recommend that policymakers adopt a more balanced approach, using ascendency-based metrics to foster a sharing ecosystem that is not only efficient but also robust and adaptive.

RESEARCH TOPICS

Keywords

scientific instruments open sharing ecological network analysis ascendency circular economy system sustainability China

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
SOURCES & SCHOLARSHIP

References

  1. Alkaabneh F, Diabat A, Gao HZO (2021) A unified framework for efficient, effective, and fair resource allocation by food banks using an Approximate Dynamic Programming approach. Omega 100:102300
  2. An J, Holme T (2021) Investigating general chemistry students’ ideas of the role of scientific instruments. J. Chem. Educ. 99(2):828–838
  3. Andreoni V (2020) The Trap of Success: A Paradox of Scale for Sharing Economy and Degrowth. Sustainability 12(8):3153
  4. Andrews J, Clark M, Hillis V, Mulder MB (2024) The cultural evolution of collective property rights for sustainable resource governance. Nat. Sustainability 7:404–412
  5. Champenois C, Etzkowitz H (2018) From boundary line to boundary space: The creation of hybrid organizations as a Triple Helix micro-foundation. Technovation 76-77:28–39
  6. Corvellec H, Stowll AF, Johansson N (2022) Critiques of the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 26(2):421–432
  7. Coulter CL (1978) Research instrument sharing. Science 201(4354):415–420
  8. Derksen DM, Mithofer D (2022) Thinking sustainably? Identifying stakeholders’ positions toward corporate sustainability in floriculture with Q methodology. Appl. Economic Perspect. Policy 44(4):1762–1787
  9. ESFRI (2020) ESFRI Roadmap 2021: Strategy report on research infrastructures. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union
  10. Fath BD, Scharler UM (2019) Systems ecology: Ecological network analysis. Encyclopedia of Ecology (Second Edition). Ref. Modul. Earth Syst. Environ. Sci. 1:643–652
  11. Fath BD, Asmus H, Asmus D, Baird D, Borrett SR, de Jonge VN, Ludovisi A, Niquil N, Scharler UM, Schückel U, Wolff M (2019a) Ecological network analysis metrics: The need for an entire ecosystem approach in management and policy. Ocean Coast. Manag. 174:1–14
  12. Fath BD, Fiscus DA, Goerner SJ, Berea A, Ulanowicz RE (2019b) Measuring regenerative economics: 10 principles and measures undergirding systemic economic health. Glob. Transit. 1:15–27
  13. Figge F, Thorpe AS, Manzhynski S (2021a) Between you and I: A portfolio theory of the circular economy. Ecol. Econ. 190:107190
  14. Figge F, Thorpe A, Good J (2021b) Us before me: a group level approach to the circular economy. Ecol. Econ. 179:1–8
  15. Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S, Zhang P (2013) Measuring China’s circular economy. Science 339:1526–1527
  16. Goetz RU, Martínez Y, Xabadia A (2017) Efficiency and acceptance of new water allocation rules – The case of an agricultural water users association. Sci. Total Environ. 601:614–625
  17. Golany B, Goldberg N, Rothblum UG (2015) Allocating multiple defensive resources in a zero-sum game setting. Ann. Oper. Res. 225(1):91–109
  18. González-Mejía AM, Ma X (2017) The Emergy perspective of sustainable trends in Puerto Rico from 1960 to 2013. Ecol. Econ. 133:11–22
  19. Hallonsten O (2014) How expensive is Big Science? Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities. Scientometrics 100(2):483–496
  20. Huang CL, Vause J, Ma HW, Yu CP (2012) Using material/substance flow analysis to support sustainable development assessment: A literature review and outlook. Resour., Conserv. Recycling 68:104–116
  21. Huang JL, Ulanowicz RE (2014) Ecological network analysis for economic systems: Growth and development and implications for sustainable development. Plos ONE, 9(6), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100923
  22. Kannan D, Khodaverdi R, Olfat L, Jafarian A, Diabat A (2013) Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 47:355–367
  23. Kharrazi A, Rovenskaya E, Fath BD (2017) Network structure impacts global commodity trade growth and resilience. PloS ONE 12(2):e0171184
  24. Kyriakopoulos GL (2021) Environmental legislation in European and international contexts: Legal practices and social planning toward the circular economy. Laws 10(1):3
  25. Li RC, Luo YY, Chen BR, Huang H, Liu P (2024) Efficiency of scientific and technological resource allocation in Chengdu–Chongqing–Mianyang Urban agglomeration: based on DEA–Malmquist index model. Environ., Dev. Sustainability 26:10461–10483
  26. Li Y, Yang ZF (2011) Quantifying the sustainability of water use systems: Calculating the balance between network efficiency and resilience. Ecol. Model. 222(10):1771–1780
  27. Liang JS, Hu K, Dai TQ (2018) Ecological network analysis quantifying the sustainability of regional economics: A case study of Guangdong province in China. Chin. Geographical Sci. 28(01):127–136
  28. Liang S, Yu YD, Kharrazi A, Fath BD, Feng CY, Daigger GT, Chen SQ, Ma TJ, Zhu B, Mi ZF, Yang ZF (2020) Network resilience of phosphorus cycling in China has shifted by natural flows, fertilizer use and dietary transitions between 1600 and 2012. Nat. Food 1:365–375
  29. Liu H, Hu Y, Wang DM (2019) An analysis of the status and open sharing of large – scale scientific research instruments in China. Sci. Res. Manag. 40(9):282–288
  30. Lu YX (2008) Several thoughts on the construction of technical support system of Chinese academy of sciences. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2008(06):481–484
  31. Ludovisi A, Scharler UM (2017) Towards a sounder interpretation of entropy-based indicators in ecological network analysis. Ecol. Indic. 72:726–731
  32. Malghan D (2010) On the relationship between scale, allocation, and distribution. Ecol. Econ. 69(11):2261–2270
  33. Morris ZB, Weissburg M, Bras B (2021) Ecological network analysis of urban-industrial ecosystems. J. Ind. Ecol. 25(1):193–203
  34. Nguyen HN, O’Donnell C (2023) Estimating the cost efficiency of public service providers in the presence of demand uncertainty. Eur. J. Operational Res. 309(3):1334–1348
  35. NSF (2022) Major Research Instrumentation Program: Program Solicitation. NSF, 23-519
  36. Ostrom R (2009) A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325(5939):419–422
  37. Ostrom E (2010) Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. Am. Economic Rev. 100(3):641–672
  38. Park KS, Cho JW (2011) Pro-efficiency: Data speak more than technical efficiency. Eur. J. Operational Res. 215(1):301–308
  39. Philippon T (2019) The economics and politics of market concentration (NBER Reporter). National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA, 4, 10–12
  40. Picavet E (2009) Opportunities and pitfalls for ethical analysis in operations research and the management sciences. Omega 37(6):1121–1131
  41. Pirgmaier E (2017) The neoclassical Trojan Horse of Steady-State Economics. Ecol. Econ. 133:52–61
  42. Qiao L, Mu R, Chen K (2016) Scientific effects of large research infrastructures in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 112:102–112
  43. Rapposelli A, Birindelli G, Modina M (2023) The relationship between firm size and efficiency: why does default on bank loans matter? Quality and Quantity, s11135
  44. Shmelev SE, Shmeleva IA (2025) Smart and sustainable benchmarking of cities and regions in Europe: The application of multicriteria assessment. Cities 156:105533
  45. Su J, Wang J, Xu ZG (2023) Promoting the open sharing of large-scale scientific instruments to better serve scientific and technological innovation. Int. Talent 2:14–15
  46. Ulanowicz RE (1997) Ecology, the scendant perspective. Columbia University Press, New York
  47. Ulanowicz RE (2009) The dual nature of ecosystem dynamics. Ecol. Model. 220(16):1886–1892
  48. Ulanowicz RE (2020) Quantifying sustainable balance in ecosystem configurations. Current Research in Environmental. Sustainability 1:1–6
  49. Ulanowicz RE, Goerner SJ, Lietaer B, Gomez R (2009) Quantifying sustainability: Resilience, efficiency and the return of information theory. Ecol. Complex. 6(1):27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2008.10.005
  50. Wang J (2020) Strengthen Management Mechanism, Promote Open Sharing of Scientific Research Facilities and Instrument. Anal. Test. Technol. Instrum. 26(01):1–2
  51. Wang XB, An ZS, Zhang CX (2023) Identifying crucial attributes of sustainable operation for scientific instrument platforms with a fuzzy synthetic cause-effect model. Sage Open, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158440231193247
  52. Wang XB, Mu C, Li JY (2024) Comparative study on evaluation system of scientific instrument platforms. Forum on Science and Technology in China, (03): 40–49. https://doi.org/10.13580/j.cnki.fstc.2024.03.005
  53. Wang XB, Wang J, Zhao L (2021a) Efficiency Evaluation of Scientific Instruments Platform based on Two-stage Date Envelope Analysis. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 41(12):57–63
  54. Wang XB, Zhao XR, Zhang CX (2021b) An attribute-based evaluation framework for sustainable scientific instruments platforms. Sustainability 13(21):11842
  55. Webster K (2021) A Circular Economy Is About the Economy. Circular Econ. Sustainability 1:115–126
  56. Williams MJ (2021) Beyond state capacity: bureaucratic performance, policy implementation and reform. J. Institutional Econ. 16(4):511–533
  57. Xiang Y, Jiang QY, Hu JY, Chen N, He SW (2024) Evolution trend, current hotspots and future prospects of instrument sharing management. China Sci. Technol. Resour. Rev. 56(1):69–81
  58. Xiong W, Jiang MZ, Tashkhodjaev M, Pashayev Z (2023) Greening the economic recovery: Natural resource market efficiency as a key driver. Resour. Policy 86:104268
  59. Xu ZG, Wang RR, Guo ZX, Jiang YH, Han YG, Wang J (2022) Study on relevant mechanism of duplicate checking review of newly purchase large-scale scientific research instruments. Exp. Technol. Manag. 39(09):261–265
  60. Xu ZM, Cheng GD, Ulanowicz RE, Song XY, Deng XH, Zhong FL (2018) The common developmental road: tensions among centripetal and centrifugal dynamics. Natl Sci. Rev. 5(3):417–426
  61. Yang HD, Liu L, Wang GF (2024) Does large-scale research infrastructure affect regional knowledge innovation, and how? A case study of the National Supercomputing Center in China. Humanities Soc. Sci. Commun. 11:338
  62. Yu SN (2022). Optimize the allocation of resources to promote scientific and technological innovation. People’s Daily, 2022-12-08(013). https://doi.org/10.28655/n.cnki.nrmrb.2022.013328
  63. You DY, Xiao S, Zhang C, Wen H, Song DC, Guo RT, Wen K, Wei Q, Yu Z, Li TM (2024) Authority vs. incentives: Comparison of central and local government policies to promote openness of scientific facilities and instruments. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 39(8):1389–1400
  64. Zisopoulos FK, Noll D, Singh SJ, Schraven D, de Jong M, Fath BD, Goerner S, Webster K, Fiscus D, Ulanowicz RE (2023) Regenerative economics at the service of islands: Assessing the socio-economic metabolism of Samothraki in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 408:137136
  65. Zisopoulos FK, Schraven DFJ, de Jong M (2022) How robust is the circular economy in Europe? An ascendency analysis with Eurostat data between 2010 and 2018. Resour., Conserv. Recycling 178:106032
  66. Zou JX, Chen B, Wang SG (2025) Ecological network analysis and optimization of urban water metabolic system in context of energy nexus. Appl. Energy 388(15):125700