| Literature DB >> 30257427 |
Xiaohong Chen1,2, Guodong Yi3,4, Jia Liu5, Xiang Liu6, Yang Chen7,8.
Abstract
This research utilizes the environmental Kuznets curve to demonstrate the interrelationship between economic growth, industrial structure, and water quality of the Xiangjiang river basin in China by employing spatial panel data models. First, it obtains two variables (namely, CODMn, which represents the chemical oxygen demand of using KMnO₄ as chemical oxidant, and NH₃-N, which represents the ammonia nitrogen content index of wastewater) by pretreating the data of 42 environmental monitoring stations in the Xiangjiang river basin from 2005 to 2015. Afterward, Moran's I index is adopted to analyze the spatial autocorrelation of CODMn and NH₃-N concentration. Then, a comparative analysis of the nonspatial panel model and spatial panel model is conducted. Finally, this research estimates the intermediate effect of the industrial structure of the Xiangjiang river basin in China. The results show that spatial autocorrelation exists in pollutant concentration and the relationship between economic growth and pollutant concentration shapes as an inverted-N trajectory. Moreover, the turn points of the environmental Kuznets curve for CODMn are RMB 83,001 and RMB 108,583 per capita GDP. In contrast, the turn points for NH₃-N are RMB 50,980 and RMB 188,931 per capita GDP. Additionally, the environmental Kuznets curve for CODMn can be explained by industrial structure adjustment, while that for NH₃-N cannot. As a consequence, the research suggests that the effect of various pollutants should be taken into account while making industrial policies.Entities:
Keywords: economic growth; industrial structure; spatial effects; water quality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30257427 PMCID: PMC6210290 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15102095
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of environmental monitoring stations in the Xiangjiang river basin.
Data statistics for water-quality pollutant concentration in 2005–2015 in the Xiangjiang River.
| Variables | Unit | Sample Size | Mean | Maximum | Minimun | Std.Dev |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CODMn | mg/L | 286 | 2.706307 | 8.27 | 0.25 | 1.112028 |
| NH3-N | mg/L | 286 | 0.5549968 | 4.17 | 0.028 | 0.6375492 |
| Pergdp | 10,000 yuan/person | 286 | 3.230058 | 15.19642 | 0.5712453 | 2.394778 |
| primary | % | 286 | 0.132208 | 0.387262 | 0.000218 | 0.104902 |
| indus | % | 286 | 0.398297 | 0.833231 | 0.075346 | 0.156605 |
| pop | 10,000 people/km2 | 286 | 0.134713 | 1.268224 | 0.009488 | 0.222809 |
| ur | % | 286 | 59.85635 | 100 | 18.51 | 26.1837 |
| precipitation | millimeter | 286 | 1368.753 | 2151 | 804 | 253.0147 |
Figure 2Spatial pattern diagram of water-environment quality.
Correlation coefficient matrix and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test.
| Variables | VIF | CODMn | NH3-N | Pergdp | Primary | Indus | Pop | Precipitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CODMn | 1.07 | 1 | ||||||
| NH3-N | 1.77 | 0.58 *** | 1 | |||||
| Pergdp | 4.93 | 0.11 * | 0.44 *** | 1 | ||||
| Primary | 2.71 | −0.06 | −0.32 *** | −0.74 *** | 1 | |||
| Indus | 1.53 | −0.21 *** | −0.38 *** | −0.06 | −0.22 *** | 1 | ||
| Pop | 3.64 | 0.28 *** | 0.58 *** | 0.79 *** | −0.52 ** | −0.35 *** | 1 | |
| Precipitation | 1.05 | −0.19 *** | −0.07 | 0.16 *** | −0.12 ** | 0.08 | 0.06 | 1 |
Note: The symbol * denotes p < 0.1, ** denotes p < 0.05, and *** denotes p < 0.01.
Moran’s I values for CODMn and NH3-N between 2005 and 2015.
| Variables | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CODMn | 0.454 | 0.336 | 0.115 | 0.178 | 0.305 | 0.062 | 0.068 | 0.193 | 0.169 | 0.258 | 0.408 |
| NH3-N | 0.647 | 0.573 | 0.565 | 0.569 | 0.633 | 0.639 | 0.338 | 0.567 | 0.355 | 0.632 | 0.871 |
Note: All the Moran’s I statistics were calculated at a 99% confidence interval.
Estimation results for CODMn.
| Variables | CODMn | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS | SAR | SEM | SDM | ||
| X | X × W | ||||
| Pergdp | −0.769125 ** | −0.814879 *** | −0.8491968 *** | −0.8627394 *** | 1.586722 *** |
| Pergdp2 | 0.0568525 | 0.0632209 * | 0.0629587 * | 0.0906988 ** | −0.1469894 ** |
| Pergdp3 | −0.0017309 | −0.0019929 | −0.0018965 | −0.0031909 ** | 0.0047774 * |
| primary | −7.307696 *** | −7.089124 *** | −7.416741 ** | −6.726415 *** | −4.344041 |
| indus | −2.161912 * | −1.775304 | −1.842487 * | −2.326853 ** | −5.136943 *** |
| pop | −2.429998 | −2.338575 | −2.133634 | −2.405921 | 0.3432917 |
| pre | −0.0002118 | −0.0002282 | −0.0001922 | −0.0000604 ** | −0.0001505 |
| λ | 0.095021 | 0.1135916 | 0.1003935 * | ||
| Log likelihood | −237.9421 | −237.2963 | −236.7877 | −222.8622 | |
| Lagrange Multiplier (LM) spatial lag | 3.5722 * | ||||
| LM spatial error | 4.3314 ** | ||||
| Robust LM spatial lag | 0.2122 | ||||
| Robust LM spatial error | 0.8078 | ||||
| Durbin–Watson | 1.6843 | 1.7390 | 1.6887 | 1.7900 | |
| Wald Test | 30.2044 *** | 30.8764 *** | |||
| LR Test | 28.8703 *** | 27.8688 *** | |||
| Hausman test | 27.9928 ** | ||||
| Spatial fixed effects | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| Time fixed effects | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
|
| 0.0563 | 0.0604 | 0.0445 | 0.153 | |
Note: The symbol * denotes p < 0.1. ** denotes p < 0.05. *** denotes p < 0.01.
Estimation results for NH3-N.
| Variables | NH3-N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS | SAR | SEM | SDM | ||
| X | X × W | ||||
| Pergdp | −0.2304252 * | −0.3599694 *** | −0.2796854 ** | −0.3831458 *** | 0.5121585 ** |
| Pergdp2 | 0.0225424 | 0.0395953 *** | 0.0279102 * | 0.04656 *** | −0.0602376 ** |
| Pergdp3 | −0.0002884 * | −0.0010476 * | −0.0006139 | −0.0012895 ** | 0.0022042 ** |
| primary | 0.8327864 | 1.190792 | 0.7400716 | 1.028606 | −2.10261 * |
| indus | 0.0973589 | 0.4293576 | 0.121705 | 0.6328895 | 0.1612411 |
| pop | −5.441929 *** | −5.197749 *** | −4.009296 *** | −4.974618 *** | 1.229716 |
| pre | −0.0002017 ** | −0.0001833 ** | 0.0002131 ** | −0.0002387 | 0.0001564 |
| λ | 0.5099835 *** | 0.474194 *** | 0.4745402 *** | ||
| Log-likelihood | 7.1233 | 34.2731 | 21.5694 | ||
| LM spatial lag | 32.1044 *** | ||||
| LM spatial error | 18.5332 *** | ||||
| Robust LM spatial lag | 29.1668 *** | ||||
| Robust LM spatial error | 6.6632 ** | ||||
| Durbin-Watson | 1.5847 | 1.6830 | 1.6677 | 1.6600 | |
| Wald Test | 20.0846 *** | 27.0840 ** | |||
| LR Test | 19.3777 *** | 44.6156 *** | |||
| Hausman test | 49.4105 *** | ||||
| Spatial fixed effects | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| Time fixed effects | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
|
| 0.3184 | 0.1869 | 0.1911 | 0.2286 | |
Note: The symbol * denotes p < 0.1. ** denotes p < 0.05. *** denotes p < 0.01.
Figure 3Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) of CODMn and NH3-N. Notes: Blue curve denotes CODMn and the black denotes NH3-N. Overall concentration of NH3-N is actually lower than that of CODMn, the curve of it is adjusted upwards for the aesthetics of the figure.
Direct and indirect effects of each explanatory variable.
| Variables | CODMn | NH3-N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | |
| pergdp | −0.81844 ** | 1.6124 *** | 0.79401 | −0.3247845 ** | 0.518729 ** | 0.19339 |
| pergdp2 | 0.08473 ** | −0.14809 ** | −0.0633 | 0.0395103 *** | −0.06006 * | −0.02055 |
| pergdp3 | −0.002987 * | 0.004793 * | 0.00118 | −0.0012895 ** | 0.0023856 | 0.001367 |
| primary | −6.7732 *** | −5.2055 * | −11.988 *** | 0.8134952 | −2.45148 | −1.637988 |
| indus | −2.41538 ** | −5.4209 *** | −7.8363 *** | 0.6585608 | 0.56817 | 1.2267 |
| pop | −2.4034 | −0.56609 | −2.9695 | −4.841386 *** | −0.58244 | −5.4238 *** |
| pre | −0.000578 | 0.0001696 | −0.0001118 | −0.0002219 * | 0.000111 | −0.000111 |
Note: The symbol * denotes p < 0.1, ** denotes p < 0.05, and *** denotes p < 0.01.
Impact of the economy on the environment.
| Variables | CODMn | NH3-N |
|---|---|---|
| pergdp | −0.6344118 *** | −0.4388021 *** |
| pergdp2 | 0.0404943 * | 0.0547024 *** |
| pergdp3 | −0.009982 * | −0.00160061 *** |
| Pop | −2.542371 | −5.144074 *** |
| pre | −0.0002308 | −0.0001765 |
|
| 0.171587 *** | 0.461027 *** |
| Spatial fixed effects | Yes | Yes |
| Time fixed effects | Yes | Yes |
| Log-likelihood | −234.0258 | 40.6721 |
| R2 | 0.0803 | 0.1857 |
Note: The symbol * denotes p < 0.1, *** denotes p < 0.01.
Impact of the economy on the industry.
| Variables | Primary | Indus |
|---|---|---|
| pergdp | −0.0716853 *** | 0.0516433 *** |
| pergdp2 | 0.0102196 *** | −0.0077573 *** |
| pergdp3 | −0.0004045 *** | 0.0002928 *** |
| Pop | −0.03464 | −0.0969328 |
| pre | −8.14 × 10−6 | 0.0000677 ** |
|
| 0.1769211 * | 0.1155647 |
| Spatial fixed effects | YES | YES |
| Time fixed effects | YES | YES |
| Log-likelihood | 763.3026 | 600.1801 |
| R2 | 0.6333 | 0.4397 |
Note: The symbol * denotes p < 0.1, ** denotes p < 0.05, *** denotes p < 0.01.
Figure 4The instantaneous indirect effect of pergdp on CODMn concentration through primary.
Figure 5The instantaneous indirect effect of pergdp on CODMn concentration through indus.