| Literature DB >> 34065663 |
Ning Xu1, Fan Zhang1, Xin Xuan2.
Abstract
PM2.5 pollution has produced adverse effects all over the world, especially in fast-developing China. PM2.5 pollution in China is widespread and serious, which has aroused widespread concern of the government, the public and scholars. This paper evaluates the evolution trend and spatial pattern of PM2.5 pollution in China based on the data of 281 prefecture-level cities in China from 2007 to 2017, and reveals the pollution situation of PM2.5 and its relationship with industrial restructuring and technological progress by using spatial dynamic panel model. The results show that China's PM2.5 pollution has significant path dependence and spatial correlation, and the industrial restructuring and technological progress have significant positive effects on alleviating PM2.5 pollution. As a decomposition item of technological progress, technical change effectively alleviates PM2.5 pollution. Another important discovery is that the interaction between industrial restructuring and technological progress will aggravate PM2.5 pollution. Finally, in order to effectively improve China's air quality, while advocating the Chinese government to pursue high-quality development, this paper puts forward a regional joint prevention mechanism.Entities:
Keywords: PM2.5 pollution; industrial restructuring; prefecture-level cities; spatial dynamic panel model; technological progress
Year: 2021 PMID: 34065663 PMCID: PMC8156493 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18105283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Variable statistics results.
| Variables | Mean | Std. Dev | Min | Max | Units | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM2.5 Concentration ( | 44.63 | 18.09 | 3.64 | 104.30 | μg/m3 | 3091 |
| Industrial Structural Upgrading ( | 37.93 | 9.43 | 8.58 | 80.81 | % | 3091 |
| Industrial Structure Rationalization ( | 0.14 | 1.40 | −0.08 | 50.13 | % | 3091 |
| Technological Progress ( | 1.00 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 1.94 | % | 3091 |
| Technical Change ( | 1.01 | 0.08 | 0.59 | 1.31 | % | 3091 |
| Efficiency Change ( | 1.00 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 1.66 | % | 3091 |
| Economic Development ( | 41,169.61 | 28,456.11 | 3418.00 | 224,147.00 | yuan | 3091 |
| Urbanization ( | 49.78 | 17.89 | 12.00 | 98.70 | % | 3091 |
| Energy Intensity ( | 1.05 | 0.64 | 0.08 | 7.67 | t/104 yuan | 3091 |
| Temperature ( | 15.15 | 0.64 | 1.10 | 26.80 | °C | 3091 |
| Precipitation ( | 1006.06 | 571.28 | 41.80 | 3202.50 | mm | 3091 |
Figure 1Correlation test results for the model variables.
Figure 2China’s PM2.5 pollution status from 2007 to 2017.
Figure 3Geographical distribution of China’s PM2.5 pollution.
Results of global spatial autocorrelation.
| Year | I | Z(I) | Year | I | Z(I) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 0.583 | 58.272 *** | 2013 | 0.560 | 55.926 *** |
| 2008 | 0.494 | 49.410 *** | 2014 | 0.529 | 52.913 *** |
| 2009 | 0.491 | 49.125 *** | 2015 | 0.565 | 56.465 *** |
| 2010 | 0.531 | 53.017 *** | 2016 | 0.588 | 58.720 *** |
| 2011 | 0.539 | 53.877 *** | 2017 | 0.499 | 49.872 *** |
| 2012 | 0.507 | 50.692 *** |
Note: The symbols *** indicates p < 1%.
Figure 4Local autocorrelation map of China’s PM2.5 pollution.
Estimation results based on three models.
| General Dynamic Panel Models | Spatial Static Panel Models | Spatial Dynamic Panel Models | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model ( | Model ( | Model ( | Model ( | Model ( | Model ( | |
|
| 0.7388 *** | 0.7197 *** | 0.3271 *** | 0.3337 *** | ||
| (0.0407) | (0.0687) | (0.0310) | (0.03184) | |||
|
| 0.4639 *** | 0.4657 *** | 0.4966 *** | 0.5008 *** | ||
| (0.0239) | (0.0240) | (0.0195) | (0.0208) | |||
|
| 0.0041 * | −0.0542 ** | 0.0009 | −0.0037* | −0.0009 | −0.0078 *** |
| (0.0029) | (0.0274) | (0.0009) | (0.0027) | (0.0009) | (0.0027) | |
|
| −0.0226 | −2.2674 | −0.0015 *** | −0.0794 ** | −0.0011 * | −0.1112 *** |
| (0.0548) | (2.6874) | (0.0006) | (0.0190) | (0.0006) | (0.0158) | |
|
| −2.0470 ** | −0.1801 ** | −0.2250 ** | |||
| (0.9172) | (0.0887) | (0.0916) | ||||
|
| 0.0518** | 0.0040 * | 0.0060 *** | |||
| (0.0260) | (0.0023) | (0.0022) | ||||
|
| 2.1332 | 0.0743 *** | 0.1047 *** | |||
| (2.5335) | (0.0178) | (0.0151) | ||||
|
| 0.5328 *** | −0.0591 * | −1.1204 ** | |||
| (0.1086) | (0.0320) | (0.0543) | ||||
|
| 1.2548 *** | 0.0216 | 0.0666 ** | |||
| (0.2211) | (0.0263) | (0.0262) | ||||
| ln | 0.0124 | 0.3708 *** | −0.0758 *** | −0.0779 *** | −0.1064 *** | −0.1082 *** |
| (0.0359) | (0.0783) | (0.0143) | (0.0145) | (0.0294) | (0.0293) | |
|
| −0.0039 | −0.0076 | −0.0022 *** | −0.0021 *** | −0.0010* | −0.0010 * |
| (0.0048) | (0.0051) | (0.0007) | (0.0007) | (0.0006) | (0.0005) | |
| ln | 0.0167 | 0.3049 ** | 0.0704 *** | 0.0732 *** | 0.0517 *** | 0.0493 *** |
| (0.0700) | (0.1296) | (0.0201) | (0.0201) | (0.0148) | (0.0145) | |
| ln | 0.2362 *** | 0.2495 *** | 0.0958 | 0.0987 | 0.1777 * | 0.1758 * |
| (0.0589) | (0.0789) | (0.0956) | (0.0956) | (0.0933) | (0.0952) | |
| ln | −0.2280 *** | −1.1394 *** | −0.0248 *** | −0.0244 ** | −0.0207 ** | −0.0185 * |
| (0.0330) | (0.0459) | (0.0092) | (0.0091) | (0.0098) | (0.0097) | |
| Obs | 2810 | 2810 | 3091 | 3091 | 2810 | 2810 |
| LM–Error | (0.129) | (0.128) | (0.123) | (0.122) | ||
| Robust LM–Error | (0.144) | (0.150) | (0.138) | (0.145) | ||
| LM–Lag | (0.018) | (0.013) | (0.016) | (0.011) | ||
| Robust LM–Lag | (0.037) | (0.025) | (0.032) | (0.020) | ||
| AR (1) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | ||
| AR (2) | (0.798) | (0.356) | (0.472) | (0.307) | ||
| Hansen over-Identification test | (0.195) | (0.187) | (0.213) | (0.218) | ||
Note: The symbols *, ** and *** indicate p < 10%, p < 5% and p < 1%, respectively.