| Literature DB >> 29973509 |
Beidi Diao1, Lei Ding2, Panda Su3, Jinhua Cheng4.
Abstract
While the progress of China’s industrialization and urbanization has made great strides, atmospheric pollution has become the norm, with a wide range of influence and difficult governance. While many previous works on NOx pollution have been developed from the perspectives of natural science and technology, few studies have been conducted from social-economic points of view, and regional differences have not been given adequate attention in driving force models. This paper adopts China’s provincial panel data from 2006 to 2015, an extended STIRPAT (Stochastic Impacts by Regression on Population, Affluence and Technology) model, and spatial econometric models to investigate the socio-economic influential factors and spatial-temporal patterns of NOx emissions. According to the spatial correlation analysis results, the provincial NOx emission changes not only affected the provinces themselves, but also neighboring regions. Spatial econometric analysis shows that the spatial effect largely contributes to NOx emissions. The other explanatory variables all have positive impacts on NOx emissions, except for the vehicular indicator (which did not pass the significance test). As shown through the estimated consequences of direct and indirect effects, the indicators have significant positive effects on their own areas, and exacerbate NOx pollution. In terms of indirect effects, only three factors passed the significant test. An increase in gross domestic product (GDP) and energy consumption will exacerbate adjacent NOx pollution. Finally, a series of socio-economic measures and regional cooperation policies should be applied to improve the current air environment in China.Entities:
Keywords: NOx emissions; STIRPAT; socioeconomic influential factors; spatial correlation analysis; spatial econometric models
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29973509 PMCID: PMC6068494 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15071405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Definition and the statistical description of all relevant variables used in the study.
| Variables | Definition | Units of Measurement | Mean | Std. | Skewness | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| NOx emissions | Ton | 63.378 | 43.360 | 0.800 | 0.036 | 180.100 |
|
| GDP | 108 Yuan | 15,444.160 | 13,743.211 | 1.763 | 290.760 | 72,812.550 |
|
| energy efficiency | Ton per 104 yuan | 1.096 | 0.584 | 1.402 | 0.298 | 3.860 |
|
| industrial structure | Percent | 39.520 | 9.723 | −1.637 | 6.808 | 53.036 |
|
| urbanization | Percent | 51.433 | 14.611 | 0.793 | 21.053 | 89.607 |
|
| number of vehicles | 104 units | 295.274 | 277.172 | 1.907 | 9.820 | 1510.810 |
|
| population | 104 units | 4305.997 | 2719.806 | 0.581 | 285.000 | 10,849.000 |
Figure 1National NOx emissions from 2006 to 2015 and the expected total control targets in 2015.
Figure 2Spatial distribution of provincial NOx emissions in 2006, 2010, and 2015.
Results of the panel unit root test.
| Title Difference | Variable | ADF | PP | LLC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level |
| 161.582 *** | 177.616 *** | −12.355 *** |
|
| 129.093 *** | 159.347 *** | −11.102 *** | |
|
| 162.165 *** | 162.742 *** | −15.041 *** | |
|
| 105.052 *** | 88.513 ** | −8.442 *** | |
|
| 150.982 *** | 168.818 *** | −12.118 *** | |
|
| 145.757 *** | 152.984 *** | −12.836 *** | |
|
| 157.066 *** | 176.055 *** | −11.873 *** |
Notes: ** Significance at 5% level. *** Significance at 1% level. ADF: Adjusted Dickey–Fuller; LLC: Levin–Lin–Chu.
Results for co-integration between NOx emissions and their influencing factors.
| Variable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel PP statistics | −5.934 *** | −19.161 *** | −4.723 *** | −10.839 *** | −13.458 *** | −7.498 *** |
| Panel ADF statistics | −9.942 *** | −12.253 *** | −4.878 *** | −9.226 *** | −8.928 *** | −7.318 *** |
| Group PP statistics | −5.317 *** | −6.136 *** | −3.227 *** | −6.346 *** | −3.563 *** | −3.655 *** |
| Group ADF statistics | −3.620 *** | −4.091 *** | −2.226 ** | −4.307 *** | −2.569 *** | −3.375 *** |
Notes: ** Significance at 5% level. *** Significance at 1% level.
Global Moran’s I estimate based on the Monte Carlo test.
| Years | Moran’s | Sd. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 0.2925 | 0.0117 | 0.0029 |
| 2007 | 0.1565 | 0.0117 | 0.0836 |
| 2008 | 0.2125 | 0.0116 | 0.0245 |
| 2009 | 0.2159 | 0.0118 | 0.0233 |
| 2010 | 0.3513 | 0.0116 | 0.0004 |
| 2011 | 0.3365 | 0.0117 | 0.0007 |
| 2012 | 0.3311 | 0.0117 | 0.0008 |
| 2013 | 0.3185 | 0.0117 | 0.0013 |
| 2014 | 0.3307 | 0.0107 | 0.0040 |
| 2015 | 0.3296 | 0.0110 | 0.0040 |
Figure 3Moran scatter plot of per capital NOx emissions in 2006, 2011, and 2015. a, b correspond to the left part and the right part respectively. The right part shows quadrant distributions NOx emissions, and the left part shows the corresponding spatial patterns.
Estimation results of the traditional panel data model.
| Determinants | Pooled OLS | Spatial Fixed Effects | Time-Period Fixed Effects | Spatial and Time-Period Fixed Effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.815191 *** | 0.001386 | 0.611203 *** | −0.010994 |
|
| 1.549114 *** | 0.772261 *** | 1.023624 *** | 0.765081 *** |
|
| 0.152898 | 0.797270 *** | 0.754281 *** | 0.801505 *** |
|
| 0.342133 ** | 0.082009 | 0.201438 ** | 0.099901 |
|
| −0.574377 *** | 0.874274 *** | 0.081147 | 0.872824 *** |
|
| −1.656666 *** | 1.003839 ** | 0.112472 | 1.007261 ** |
| R2 | 0.750777 | 0.8549944 | 0.81510 | 0.857801 |
| DW | 1.741779 | 2.360017 | 2.088705 | 2.384704 |
Notes: ** Significance at 5% level. *** Significance at 1% level.
Estimation results of time-period fixed panel data model.
| Variables | SEM | SLM | SDM |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.261 * | 0.219 | 0.252 * |
|
| 0.822 *** | 0.842 *** | 0.887 *** |
|
| 0.978 *** | 0.963 *** | 0.957 *** |
|
| 0.032 | 0.081 | 0.063 |
|
| 0.660 *** | 0.643 | 0.618 *** |
|
| 1.021 *** | 0.940 *** | 0.666 *** |
|
| - | - | 1.048 *** |
|
| - | - | 0.016 |
|
| - | - | 0.664 *** |
|
| - | - | −0.517 *** |
|
| - | - | −0.333 |
|
| - | - | 0.455 * |
|
| 0.208 | 0.212 | 0.197 |
|
| 0.834 | 0.836 | 0.848 |
Notes: * Significance at 10% level. *** Significance at 1% level. SLM: spatial lag model; SEM: spatial error model; SDM: spatial Durbin model.
Estimation results of direct and indirect effects.
| Variables | Direct | Indirect | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.221141 * | 0.891747 ** | 1.11288 *** |
|
| 0.889481 *** | −0.103813 | 0.785668 ** |
|
| 0.941006 *** | 0.448607 ** | 1.389613 *** |
|
| 0.0770136 | −0.471638 ** | −0.394625 ** |
|
| 0.634066 *** | −0.385499 | 0.248567 |
|
| 0.656849 ** | 0.319679 | 0.976528 * |
Notes: * Significance at 10% level. ** Significance at 5% level. *** Significance at 1% level.