| Literature DB >> 31438575 |
Quan Guo1,2, Min Zhou3, Nana Liu1, Yaoyu Wang4.
Abstract
Based on the data of green credit (GC), environmental regulation (ER) and green technology innovation (GTI) in 30 provinces and cities of China from 2007 to 2016, this study investigated the relationship between green credit and green technology innovation development and analyzed the adjustment effect of ER on GC to promote GTI using Geoda and Matlab2016 software, so as to further guide and encourage GC. The results show that GTI in 30 provinces and municipalities in China has a significant spatial agglomeration effect. Single GC plays a certain role in promoting local technology innovation, but it fails to influences the surrounding areas. Environmental regulation has a certain regulatory effect on the relationship between green credit and green technology innovation in the province but also fails to influences the surrounding areas.Entities:
Keywords: environmental regulation; green credit; green technology innovation; spatial measurement
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31438575 PMCID: PMC6747161 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16173027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Observ Ations | Mean | Standard Deviation | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnGTI (average value of natural logarithm) | 300 | 6.97 | 1.485 | 2.63 | 10.07 |
| GC (green credit) | 300 | 45.34 | 14.54 | 5.416 | 80.05 |
| ER (environmental regulation) | 300 | 1.389 | 0.685 | 0.299 | 4.111 |
| IS (industrial structure) | 300 | 42.30 | 9.085 | 28.60 | 80.23 |
| FDI (foreign direct investment) | 300 | 2.323 | 1.791 | 0.0387 | 8.190 |
| STF (technological fiscal expenditure) | 300 | 3.132 | 6.540 | 0 | 39.90 |
| lnlabor | 300 | 10.40 | 1.370 | 5.682 | 13.03 |
| lncapital | 300 | 0.743 | 0.382 | 0.240 | 3.100 |
Correlation Analysis.
| GTI | GC | ER | IS | FDI | STF | lnlabor | lncapital | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTI | 1 | |||||||
| GC | 0.535 *** | 1 | ||||||
| ER | 0.132 ** | 0.178 *** | 1 | |||||
| IS | 0.493 *** | 0.207 *** | 0.00400 | 1 | ||||
| FDI | −0.170 *** | −0.348 *** | −0.210 *** | −0.226 *** | 1 | |||
| STF | 0.156 *** | 0.096 * | 0.187 *** | 0.108 * | 0.0800 | 1 | ||
| lnlabor | 0.630 *** | 0.682 *** | 0.246 *** | 0.153 *** | 0.284 *** | 0.169 *** | 1 | |
| lncapital | 0.226 *** | 0.237 *** | 0.429 *** | 0.245 *** | 0.358 *** | 0.107 * | 0.331 *** | 1 |
Note: *, **, and *** indicate statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.
Figure 1Change trend of GTI level in China in 2007–2016.
Moran’s I index of GTI of 30 provinces and cities in China in 2007–2016.
| Year | Moran’I | Year | Moran’I | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 0.1883 | 1.9463 | 0.038 | 2012 | 0.2616 | 2.7793 | 0.011 |
| 2008 | 0.1949 | 2.02.4 | 0.04 | 2013 | 0.2054 | 2.269 | 0.025 |
| 2009 | 0.2205 | 2.3215 | 0.022 | 2014 | 0.2195 | 2.4333 | 0.024 |
| 2010 | 0.2429 | 2.4975 | 0.019 | 2015 | 0.2682 | 2.8859 | 0.006 |
| 2011 | 0.2578 | 2.6017 | 0.018 | 2016 | 0.2513 | 2.5347 | 0.017 |
Figure 2Scatter diagram of Moran’s I in 2007.
Figure 3Scatter diagram of Moran’s I in 2016.
LM test of spatial panel model.
| LM Test | No Fixed Effects | Time Period Fixed Effects | Spatial Fixed Effects | Spatial and Time Period Fixed Effects | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| LM test no spatial lag | 775.8084 | 0 | 0.4996 | 0.480 | 4.9141 | 0.027 | 9.8991 | 0.02 |
| Robust LM test no spatial lag | 1440.0568 | 0 | 15.3422 | 0 | 106.6592 | 0 | 14.7746 | 0 |
| LM test no spatial error | 104.2632 | 0 | 83.8954 | 0 | 279.2499 | 0 | 83.9936 | 0 |
Spatial panel model estimation results of influence factors of GTI in China.
| SLM | SEM | SDM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
| GC | 1.7726 *** | 1.9043 *** | 0.8891 ** | 2.1819 *** | 0.5690 ** | 1.3590 ** |
| (5.2543) | (−3.2877) | (2.4358) | (−3.4950) | (2.6082) | (−2.1808) | |
| IS | 0.0316 *** | 0.0397 *** | 0.0294 *** | 0.0414 *** | 0.0277 | 0.0360 *** |
| (7.9720) | (10.6520) | (6.7363) | (9.5691) | (6.4763) *** | (8.0066) | |
| FDI | −0.0268 | −0.0270 | −0.0298 | −0.0411 | −0.0218 | −0.0316 |
| (−1.1416) | (−1.2746) | (−1.0687) | (−1.5834) | (−0.7944) | (−1.1961) | |
| lnlabor | 0.5572 ** | 0.6570 *** | 0.7643 *** | 0.7619 *** | 0.8367 *** | 0.8374 *** |
| (18.0589) | (21.4885) | (23.1448) | (24.7912) | (25.1648) | (26.2567) | |
| lncapital | 0.0101 *** | 0.432189 *** | 0.5344 *** | 0.6842 *** | 0.7215 *** | 0.8497 *** |
| (0.1052) | (4.1837) | (4.3207) | (5.6613) | (5.6573) | (6.7380) | |
| STF | 0.02547 *** | 0.0188 *** | −0.0188 ** | −0.0017 | 0.0291 *** | 0.0203 *** |
| (4.4506) | (3.6009) | (−2.4299) | (-0.2399) | (−3.8597) | (−2.5845) | |
| ER | 1.3123 *** | 1.2434 *** | 0.8048 *** | |||
| (−8.2922) | (−6.8278) | (−4.1898) | ||||
| GC*ER | −2.4493 *** | −2.3884 *** | −1.4936 *** | |||
| (7.2825) | (5.9317) | (3.5250) | ||||
| WGC | 0.7222 | 1.1568 | ||||
| (1.3737) | (1.2077) | |||||
| WIS | −0.0221 *** | −0.0261 *** | ||||
| (−3.5522) | (−4.1202) | |||||
| WFDI | 0.0126 | 0.0224 | ||||
| (0.3480) | (0.6378) | |||||
| Wlnlabor | −0.649836 *** | −0.5946 ** | ||||
| (−13.2990) | (−11.0143) | |||||
| Wlncapital | −0.8666 *** | −0.7800 *** | ||||
| (−5.1084) | (−4.2823) | |||||
| WSTF | −0.0395 | −0.0275 *** | ||||
| 4.4770 *** | (3.0603) | |||||
| WER | 0.2876 | |||||
| (1.0135) | ||||||
| WGC*ER | −0.5998 | |||||
| (−1.0279) | ||||||
| W * dep.var. | 0.0749 ** | 0.0619 | 0.5899 *** | 0.5769 *** | ||
| (1.7767) | (1.6197) | (13.1189) | (12.4160) | |||
| Spatial autoregressive parameter (spat.aut.) | 0.76698 *** | 0.6719 *** | ||||
| (27.1054) | (17.6499) | |||||
| R-squared | 0.8961 | 0.9154 | 0.8369 | 0.8979 | 0.9485 | 0.9527 |
| sigma2 | 0.3786 | 0.3083 | 0.2210 | 0.2085 | 0.1876 | 0.1724 |
| log-likelihood | −289.5560 | −257.6234 | −231.8897 | −210.5892 | −201.3879 | −187.1895 |
Note: t statistics are enclosed in parentheses. *, **, and *** indicate statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.