| Literature DB >> 30042880 |
Yi Li1,2,3, Jie Shen4, Linyi Lu4, Yan Luo1,5, Laili Wang1,2, Manhong Shen6.
Abstract
The rapid development of China's textile industry (TI) has led to severe water environmental stress. Water environmental stress of China's TI mainly comes from large quantities of discharged wastewater and chemical oxygen demand (COD). The sustainable development of the TI is realized to achieve the decoupling between economic growth and water environmental stress. This study analyzes the decoupling elasticity results from wastewater discharge and COD discharge, respectively. Decoupling results show that TI's wastewater has strong decoupling from economic growth for three years (2002, 2013-2014) while COD has strong decoupling for six years (2002-2003, 2008, 2010, 2013-2014). The paper further calculates the decoupling elasticity results of the TI's three sub-sectors (manufacture of textile sector, manufacture of textile wearing and apparel sector, and manufacture of chemical fibers (MCF) sector), and calculates the factors that affect wastewater discharge. The decrement and rebound effects of wastewater discharge are analyzed based on calculated results. Decomposition results show that the scale factor is the most significant contributor to wastewater discharge, the intensity factor inhibits wastewater discharge, and the effect of the structure factor is not evident. The decrement effect of TI increases yearly, but the rebound effect shows that the absolute amount of wastewater discharge also increases. The rebound effect has declined since 2012. In the three sub-sectors, MCF's decrement effect is the strongest, and its rebound effect is the weakest, which indicate that MCF is the biggest contributor to the discharge reduction of China's TI.Entities:
Keywords: COD discharge; Decoupling; Economic growth; Rebound effect; Textile industry; Wastewater discharge; Water environmental stress
Year: 2018 PMID: 30042880 PMCID: PMC6056267 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5112
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Decoupling degree of economic growth and water environmental stress.
Description of variables in decoupling equation.
| Variable | Definition | Description of variable | Definition of related variable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discharge intensity of TI | |||
| Industrial structure of TI | |||
| Industry scale of TI |
Note:
TI, textile industry.
Figure 2(A) The wastewater discharge of China’s TI and its three sub-sectors; (B) the COD discharge of China’s TI and its three sub-sectors.
Decoupling results of the TI during 2002–2014.
| Year | Decoupling degree | Decoupling degree | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | −0.134 | Strong decoupling | −0.838 | Strong decoupling |
| 2003 | 0.331 | Weak decoupling | −0.759 | Strong decoupling |
| 2004 | 0.476 | Weak decoupling | 0.727 | Weak decoupling |
| 2005 | 0.354 | Weak decoupling | 0.175 | Weak decoupling |
| 2006 | 0.510 | Weak decoupling | 0.209 | Weak decoupling |
| 2007 | 0.558 | Weak decoupling | 0.161 | Weak decoupling |
| 2008 | 0.043 | Weak decoupling | −0.145 | Strong decoupling |
| 2009 | 0.214 | Weak decoupling | 0.648 | Weak decoupling |
| 2010 | 0.059 | Weak decoupling | −0.234 | Strong decoupling |
| 2011 | 0.029 | Weak decoupling | 0.202 | Weak decoupling |
| 2012 | 1.337 | Recessive decoupling | 1.478 | Recessive decoupling |
| 2013 | −2.465 | Strong decoupling | −0.538 | Strong decoupling |
| 2014 | −0.666 | Strong decoupling | −9.709 | Strong decoupling |
Note:
DWD: decoupling elasticity of wastewater discharge and economic growth; DCOD: decoupling elasticity of COD content and economic growth.
Decoupling results of the MT during 2002–2014.
| Year | %Δ | %Δ | Decoupling degree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 0.025 | 0.017 | 1.448 | Expansive negative decoupling |
| 2003 | 0.077 | 0.121 | 0.565 | Weak decoupling |
| 2004 | 0.089 | 0.207 | 0.432 | Weak decoupling |
| 2005 | 0.119 | 0.242 | 0.494 | Weak decoupling |
| 2006 | 0.149 | 0.240 | 0.621 | Weak decoupling |
| 2007 | 0.138 | 0.108 | 1.278 | Expansive negative decoupling |
| 2008 | 0.023 | 0.596 | 0.039 | Weak decoupling |
| 2009 | 0.038 | 0.094 | 0.402 | Weak decoupling |
| 2010 | 0.027 | 0.082 | 0.323 | Weak decoupling |
| 2011 | −0.019 | 0.243 | −0.078 | Strong decoupling |
| 2012 | −0.015 | −0.033 | 0.442 | Weak negative decoupling |
| 2013 | −0.145 | 0.051 | −2.840 | Strong decoupling |
| 2014 | −0.033 | −0.028 | 1.173 | Recessive decoupling |
Note:
%ΔWWD: the growth rate of wastewater discharge; %ΔP: the growth rate of output value; DWD: decoupling elasticity of wastewater discharge and economic growth.
Decoupling results of the MCF during 2002–2014.
| Year | %Δ | %Δ | Decoupling degree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | −0.096 | 0.192 | −0.500 | Strong decoupling |
| 2003 | −0.095 | −0.058 | 1.626 | Recessive decoupling |
| 2004 | −0.028 | 0.156 | −0.182 | Strong decoupling |
| 2005 | 0.022 | 0.224 | 0.099 | Weak decoupling |
| 2006 | 0.021 | 0.188 | 0.113 | Weak decoupling |
| 2007 | −0.012 | 0.549 | −0.022 | Strong decoupling |
| 2008 | −0.018 | 0.063 | −0.283 | Strong decoupling |
| 2009 | −0.088 | −0.072 | 1.225 | Recessive decoupling |
| 2010 | −0.034 | 0.387 | −0.087 | Strong decoupling |
| 2011 | −0.022 | 0.258 | −0.086 | Strong decoupling |
| 2012 | −0.148 | −0.060 | 2.478 | Recessive decoupling |
| 2013 | −0.008 | 0.035 | −0.235 | Strong decoupling |
| 2014 | 0.138 | 0.093 | 1.487 | Expansive negative decoupling |
Note:
%ΔWWD: the growth rate of wastewater discharge; %ΔP: the growth rate of output value; DWD: decoupling elasticity of wastewater discharge and economic growth.
Decoupling results of the MTWA during 2002–2014.
| Year | %Δ | %Δ | Decoupling degree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 0.179 | 0.204 | 0.881 | Expansive coupling |
| 2003 | 0.199 | 0.152 | 1.308 | Expansive negative decoupling |
| 2004 | 1.164 | 0.108 | 10.825 | Expansive negative decoupling |
| 2005 | −0.194 | 0.127 | −1.522 | Strong decoupling |
| 2006 | 0.490 | 0.771 | 0.636 | Weak decoupling |
| 2007 | 0.059 | −0.004 | −15.787 | Strong negative decoupling |
| 2008 | 0.052 | 0.075 | 0.689 | Weak decoupling |
| 2009 | −0.034 | 0.148 | −0.229 | Strong decoupling |
| 2010 | −0.183 | −0.104 | 1.748 | Recessive decoupling |
| 2011 | 0.651 | 0.378 | 1.721 | Expansive negative decoupling |
| 2012 | −0.141 | 0.104 | −1.360 | Strong decoupling |
| 2013 | 0.003 | 0.064 | 0.055 | Weak decoupling |
| 2014 | 0.038 | 0.117 | 0.323 | Weak decoupling |
Note:
%ΔWWD: the growth rate of wastewater discharge; %ΔP: the growth rate of output value; DWD: decoupling elasticity of wastewater discharge and economic growth.
Figure 3(A) The contribution value of factors influencing TI’s wastewater discharge; (B) the contribution value of TI’s decrement effect and rebound effect.
Figure 4(A) The contribution value of factors influencing MT’s wastewater discharge; (B) the contribution value of MT’s decrement effect and rebound effect.
Figure 6(A) The contribution value of factors influencing MCF’s wastewater discharge; (B) the contribution value of MCF’s decrement effect and rebound effect.
Figure 5(A) The contribution value of factors influencing MTWA’s wastewater discharge; (B) the contribution value of MTWA’s decrement effect and rebound effect.