| Literature DB >> 32946497 |
Jingjing Shao1, Jingfeng Ge1,2, Xiaomiao Feng3, Chaoran Zhao1.
Abstract
Based on 0.01°×0.01° grid data of PM2.5 annual concentration and statistical yearbook data for 11 cities in Hebei Province from 2000 to 2015, the temporal and spatial distribution characteristics of PM2.5 in the study area are analysed, the level of intensive land use in the area is evaluated, and decoupling theory and spatial regression are used to discuss the relationship between PM2.5 concentration and intensive land use and the influence of intensive land use variables on PM2.5 in Hebei Province. The results show that 1. In terms of time, the concentration of PM2.5 in Hebei Province showed an overall upward trend from 2000 to 2015, with the highest in winter and the lowest in summer. The daily variations show double peaks at 8:00-10:00 and 21:00-0:00 and a single valley at 16:00-18:00. 2. In terms of space, the concentration of PM2.5 in Hebei Province is high in the southeast and low in the northwest, and the pollution spillover initially decreases and then increases. 3. In the past 16 years, the level of intensive land use in Hebei Province has increased annually, but blind expansion still exists. 4. Decoupling theory and the spatial lag model show that land use intensity, land input level and land use structure are positively correlated with PM2.5 concentration, land output benefit is negatively correlated with PM2.5 concentration, and PM2.5 concentration and land intensive use level have not yet been decoupled; thus, the relationship is not harmonious. This research can provide a scientific basis for reducing air pollution and promoting the development of urban land resources for intensive and sustainable development.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32946497 PMCID: PMC7500636 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238547
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Location map of study area.
Evaluation index system of intensive land use.
| Target Layer | Criteria Layer | Index Layer | Number | Units | Properties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban | Land use intensity (X1) | Per capita construction land area | x1 | m2/Person | - |
| Population density | x2 | Person/km2 | + | ||
| Urbanisation rate | x3 | % | - | ||
| Land use structure (X2) | Proportion of green area | x4 | % | + | |
| Proportion of road area | x5 | % | + | ||
| Proportion of cultivated land | x6 | % | + | ||
| Land input level (X3) | Fiscal expenditure per square kilometre of land | x7 | Ten thousand yuan/km2 | + | |
| Proportion of employees in secondary and tertiary industries | x8 | % | + | ||
| Fixed asset investment per square kilometre of land | x9 | Ten thousand yuan/km2 | + | ||
| Land output benefit (X4) | Per capita GDP(PGDP) | x10 | Yuan/Person | + | |
| Output value of the secondary and tertiary industries per square kilometre of land | x11 | Ten thousand yuan/km2 | + | ||
| Total retail sales of consumer goods per square kilometre of land | x12 | Ten thousand yuan/km2 | + | ||
| Green coverage rate of built-up area | x13 | % | + | ||
| Per capita green area | x14 | % | + |
Tapio decoupling status division table.
| Type | State | Change rate of PM2.5 | Change rate of land intensity use | Decoupling index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative decoupling | Expansive negative decoupling | >0 | >0 | DI>1.2 |
| Strong negative decoupling | >0 | <0 | DI<0 | |
| Weak negative decoupling | <0 | <0 | 0<DI<0.8 | |
| Decoupling | Strong decoupling | >0 | >0 | DI<0 |
| Weak decoupling | <0 | >0 | 0<DI<0.8 | |
| Recessive decoupling | <0 | <0 | DI>1.2 | |
| Coupling | Expansive coupling | >0 | >0 | 0.8<DI<1.2 |
| Recessive coupling | <0 | <0 | 0.8<DI<1.2 |
Fig 2PM2.5 concentration distribution in Hebei Province from 2000 to 2015.
Fig 3Box diagram of PM2.5 concentration in the four seasons of Hebei Province in 2015.
Fig 4Calendar chart of daily PM2.5 concentration in Hebei Province in 2015.
Fig 5PM2.5 network density and number of network association from 2000 to 2015.
Weight table of evaluation indexes of study area in 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015.
| Target Layer | Criteria Layer | Index Layer | Mean Weight | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land use intensity (X1) | Per capita construction land area | 0.038 | 0.031 | 0.04 | 0.038 | 0.043 | |
| Population density | 0.051 | 0.048 | 0.049 | 0.051 | 0.055 | ||
| Urbanisation rate | 0.063 | 0.089 | 0.046 | 0.046 | 0.071 | ||
| Land use structure (X2) | Proportion of green area | 0.100 | 0.107 | 0.098 | 0.101 | 0.092 | |
| Proportion of road area | 0.076 | 0.072 | 0.067 | 0.085 | 0.079 | ||
| Proportion of cultivated land | 0.051 | 0.046 | 0.050 | 0.053 | 0.053 | ||
| Land input level (X3) | Fiscal expenditure per square kilometre of land | 0.058 | 0.050 | 0.059 | 0.060 | 0.062 | |
| Proportion of employees in secondary and tertiary industries | 0.032 | 0.030 | 0.032 | 0.034 | 0.033 | ||
| Fixed asset investment per square kilometre of land | 0.078 | 0.080 | 0.067 | 0.081 | 0.085 | ||
| Land output benefit (X4) | Per Capita GDP(PGDP) | 0.108 | 0.082 | 0.119 | 0.123 | 0.109 | |
| Output value of the secondary and tertiary industries per square kilometre of land | 0.096 | 0.097 | 0.12 | 0.083 | 0.084 | ||
| Total retail sales of consumer goods per square kilometre of land | 0.063 | 0.060 | 0.062 | 0.065 | 0.066 | ||
| Green coverage rate of built-up area | 0.078 | 0.084 | 0.101 | 0.060 | 0.067 | ||
| Per capita green area | 0.109 | 0.125 | 0.093 | 0.116 | 0.101 |
Fig 6Chart of intensive land use and criterion layers average scores of cities in Hebei Province from 2000 to 2015.
Fig 7Chart of intensive land use and criterion layers evaluation results in Hebei Province from 2000 to 2015.
Decoupled status of PM2.5 and intensive land use level in cities of Hebei Province.
| City | T1 | T2 | T3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shijiazhuang | Strong negative decoupling | Expansive negative decoupling | Weak decoupling |
| -2.531 | 1.929 | 0.359 | |
| Tangshan | Expansive negative decoupling | Strong negative decoupling | Weak negative decoupling |
| 1.621 | -2.379 | 0.054 | |
| Qinhuangdao | Strong negative decoupling | Strong negative decoupling | Strong negative decoupling |
| -3.670 | -4.437 | -0.092 | |
| Handan | Expansive negative decoupling | Expansive coupling | Strong negative decoupling |
| 1.608 | 0.979 | -1.019 | |
| Xingtai | Strong negative decoupling | Strong negative decoupling | Strong negative decoupling |
| -1.144 | -1.067 | -0.234 | |
| Baoding | Expansive negative decoupling | Expansive negative decoupling | Strong negative decoupling |
| 5.584 | 1.719 | -1.771 | |
| Zhangjiakou | Strong negative decoupling | Strong negative decoupling | Weak decoupling |
| -6.401 | -0.308 | 0.182 | |
| Chengde | Strong negative decoupling | Weak decoupling | Weak decoupling |
| -1.387 | 0.317 | 0.382 | |
| Cangzhou | Strong negative decoupling | Weak decoupling | Expansive negative decoupling |
| -2.357 | 0.069 | 2.263 | |
| Langfang | Weak decoupling | Strong negative decoupling | Expansive negative decoupling |
| 0.442 | -3.392 | 2.806 | |
| Hengshui | Strong negative decoupling | Strong negative decoupling | Weak decoupling |
| -0.955 | -1.838 | 0.133 | |
| Hebei Province | Expansive negative decoupling | Expansive negative decoupling | Expansive negative decoupling |
| 12.427 | 18.808 | 9.064 |
Global autocorrelation analysis results.
| Year | I value | Z value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 0.5733 | 2.8031 | 0.008 |
| 2005 | 0.5387 | 2.6959 | 0.012 |
| 2010 | 0.4217 | 2.2247 | 0.030 |
| 2015 | 0.4667 | 2.4412 | 0.018 |
Test results of model selection.
| Test | Statistic value | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Hausman | 119.2751 | 0.000 |
| Wald_spatial_lag | 9.7389 | 0.045 |
| Wald_spatial_error | 4.0402 | 0.4006 |
| LM test no spatial lag | 42.1979 | 0.000 |
| LM test no spatial error | 28.8790 | 0.000 |
| Robust LM test no spatial lag | 14.6762 | 0.000 |
| Robust LM test no spatial lag | 1.3573 | 0.244 |
| LR_test joint significance spatial fixed effects | 152.7254 | 0.000 |
| LR_test joint significance time fixed effects | 102.8333 | 0.000 |
PM2.5 and spatial econometric results of intensive land use.
| Variable | SEM | SLM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal fixed | Spatial fixed | Spatiotemporal double fixed | Temporal fixed | Spatial fixed | Spatiotemporal double fixed | |
| Land use intensity | 234.596 | 83.563 | 82.450 | 197.316 | 79.497 | 90.383 |
| Land use structure | 61.219 | 45.026 | 44.743 | 63.501 | 67.276 | 44.169 |
| Land input level | 104.412 | 150.449 | 187.623 | 115.695 | 182.201 | 189.558 |
| Land output benefit | -20.980 | -15.240 | -21.271 | -19.681 | -18.617 | -21.086 |
| R2 | 0.6081 | 0.8597 | 0.9896 | 0.7490 | 0.9870 | 0.9905 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.5917 | 0.2564 | 0.5326 | 0.6726 | 0.6240 | 0.5506 |
| Log-Likelihood | -166.264 | -107.710 | -90.837 | -162.758 | -105.669 | -89.931 |
| W*dep.var | —— | —— | —— | 0.416 | 0.812 | 0.326 |
| Spat.aut | 0.483 | 0.866 | 0.249 | —— | —— | —— |
Note
*, **, ***, respectively means that the test is passed at the significance level of 10%, 5%, and 1%;—means that the content is empty.