| Literature DB >> 34871330 |
Haijuan Yan1, Xiaofei Hu1, Dawei Wu2, Jianing Zhang1.
Abstract
Green development is an effective way to achieve economic growth and social development in a harmonious, sustainable, and efficient manner. Although the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) plays an important strategic role in China, our understanding of its spatiotemporal characteristics, as well as the multiple factors affecting its green development level (GDL), remains limited. This study used the entropy weight method (EWM) to analyze the temporal evolution and spatial differentiation characteristics of the GDL in the YREB from 2011 to 2019. Further, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was used to analyze the influence path of GDL. The results showed that the GDL of the YREB increased from 2015 to 2019, but the overall level was still not high, with high GDL mainly concentrated in the lower reaches. The GDL model changed from being environmentally driven and government supported in 2011 to being environmentally and economically driven since 2014. The core conditions for high GDL changed from economic development level (EDL) to scientific technological innovation level (STIL) and environmental regulation (ER). The path for improving GDL is as follows: In regions with high EDL, effective ER, moderate openness level (OL), and high STIL are the basis, supplemented by a reasonable urbanization scale (US). In areas with low EDL, reasonable industrial structure (IS) and STIL are the core conditions for development; further, EDL should be improved and effective ER and OL implemented. Alternatively, without considering changes to EDL, improvement can be achieved through reasonable OL and US or effective ER. This study provides a new method for exploring the path of GDL and a reference for governments to effectively adjust green development policies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34871330 PMCID: PMC8648114 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260985
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Research framework.
Fig 2Map of the study area.
Initial information about the variables.
| Variable Type | Influencing Factor | Abbrevia-tion | Unit | Assignment Instructions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Condition variables | Economic development level | EDL | Yuan/ person | Per capita GDP |
| Scientific technological innovation level | STIL | Number | Number of authorized patents | |
| Industrial structure | IS | % | Proportion of secondary industry | |
| Openness level | OL | Hundred million dollars | Actual amount of foreign direct investment | |
| Environment regulation | ER | % | Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste | |
| Urbanization scale | US | % | Proportion of permanent urban population in the total population of the region | |
| Outcome variable | Green development level | GDL | —— | Based on MATLAB, EWM is used to solve the problem |
Evaluation indexes of GDL in the YREB.
| First-level index | Second-level index | Third-level index | Unit | Attribute |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green economy (A) | Benefits of economic growth (A1) | Per capita GDP (A11) | Yuan | + |
| Electricity consumption per unit of GDP (A12) | Kilowatt hour | - | ||
| Primary industry (A2) | Proportion of primary industry in GDP (A21) | % | + | |
| Ratio of effective irrigated area to cultivated area (A22) | % | + | ||
| Secondary industry (A3) | Proportion of secondary industry in GDP (A31) | % | - | |
| Tertiary industry (A4) | Proportion of tertiary industry in GDP (A41) | % | + | |
| Proportion of employed persons in tertiary industry (A42) | % | + | ||
| Green environment (B) | Abundance of resources (B1) | Amount of water per capita (B11) | m3 | + |
| Area of cultivated land per capita (B12) | ha | + | ||
| Proportion of area covered by nature reserves (B13) | % | + | ||
| Forest coverage (B14) | % | + | ||
| Environ-mental carrying capacity (B2) | Industrial wastewater emissions per capita (B21) | t | - | |
| Per capita emissions of SO2 (B22) | t | - | ||
| Amount of chemical fertilizer applied per unit cultivated area (B23) | Ten t/ha | - | ||
| Nitrogen oxide emissions per capita (B24) | t | - | ||
| Green livelihood (C) | Welfare of residents (C1) | Ratio of disposable income gap between urban and rural residents (C11) | Yuan | - |
| Number of health facilities per person (C12) | - | + | ||
| Proportion of education expenditure in the general budget expenditure of local finance (C13) | % | + | ||
| Public service (C2) | Public transport vehicles per 10,000 people (C21) | - | + | |
| Green coverage of the built-up area (C22) | % | + | ||
| Harmless disposal of domestic garbage (C23) | % | + | ||
| Green policy (D) | Investment growth (D1) | Proportion of expenditure on science and technology in the local general public budget (D11) | % | + |
| Intensity of R&D expenditure (D12) | % | + | ||
| Proportion of the expenditure on environmental protection in budget of local finance (D13) | % | + | ||
| Pollution control (D2) | Proportion of investment in environmental pollution control in GDP (D21) | % | + | |
| Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste (D22) | % | + |
Fig 3Time series evolution of the GDL in the YREB.
Fig 4Evaluation values for overall green development in the YREB.
Fig 5Spatial differences in the GDL in the YREB.
Evaluation values of the GDL of different provinces and cities in 2019.
| Province/city | Green economy | Green environment | Green livelihood | Green policy | GDL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shanghai | 0.0732 | 0.0168 | 0.0080 | 0.0413 | 0.1394 |
| Jiangsu | 0.0417 | 0.0211 | 0.0213 | 0.0236 | 0.1077 |
| Zhejiang | 0.0361 | 0.0156 | 0.0181 | 0.0241 | 0.0939 |
| Anhui | 0.0263 | 0.0207 | 0.0132 | 0.0382 | 0.0983 |
| Jiangxi | 0.0156 | 0.0312 | 0.0142 | 0.0168 | 0.0778 |
| Hubei | 0.0232 | 0.0276 | 0.0138 | 0.0202 | 0.0848 |
| Hunan | 0.0286 | 0.0273 | 0.0190 | 0.0151 | 0.0899 |
| Chongqing | 0.0268 | 0.0234 | 0.0139 | 0.0184 | 0.0825 |
| Sichuan | 0.0201 | 0.0351 | 0.0182 | 0.0114 | 0.0848 |
| Yunnan | 0.0193 | 0.0288 | 0.0130 | 0.0125 | 0.0736 |
| Guizhou | 0.0160 | 0.0234 | 0.0123 | 0.0155 | 0.0672 |
Three qualitative anchor points of each variable.
| Var. | EDL | STIL | IS | OL | ER | US | GDL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | CSP | 59249 | 47960 | 54.3 | 2019 | 91.07 | 61.90 | 0.1120 |
| IP | 42454 | 26755 | 48.4 | 1174 | 71.89 | 51.87 | 0.0938 | |
| CDP | 25659 | 5550 | 42.5 | 329 | 76.86 | 41.83 | 0.0756 | |
| 2015 | CSP | 77644 | 64953 | 46.0 | 2918 | 92.55 | 65.80 | 0.1063 |
| IP | 56820 | 44557 | 42.9 | 1720 | 74.79 | 56.75 | 0.0901 | |
| CDP | 35997 | 24161 | 39.8 | 521 | 57.03 | 47.69 | 0.0739 | |
| 2019 | CSP | 107624 | 100587 | 42.6 | 3388 | 93.80 | 70.00 | 0.0983 |
| IP | 80394 | 72230 | 39.4 | 2080 | 70.09 | 61.90 | 0.0881 | |
| CDP | 53164 | 43872 | 36.1 | 772 | 46.37 | 53.79 | 0.0778 | |
Necessity testing for single condition variables.
| Condition variables | Outcome variable (high GDL) | Outcome variable (low GDL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2015 | 2019 | 2011 | 2015 | 2019 | |
| EDL | 0.940 | 0.744 | 0.681 | 0.099 | 0.167 | 0.212 |
| ~EDL | 0.219 | 0.415 | 0.459 | 0.980 | 0.961 | 0.914 |
| STIL | 0.962 | 0.820 | 0.837 | 0.280 | 0.389 | 0.325 |
| ~STIL | 0.211 | 0.339 | 0.324 | 0.805 | 0.740 | 0.820 |
| IS | 0.633 | 0.789 | 0.672 | 0.646 | 0.696 | 0.504 |
| ~IS | 0.501 | 0.362 | 0.459 | 0.420 | 0.426 | 0.613 |
| OL | 0.896 | 0.716 | 0.630 | 0.078 | 0.119 | 0.104 |
| ~OL | 0.211 | 0.413 | 0.461 | 0.976 | 0.984 | 0.976 |
| ER | 0.956 | 0.789 | 0.902 | 0.369 | 0.327 | 0.344 |
| ~ER | 0.225 | 0.348 | 0.290 | 0.721 | 0.782 | 0.829 |
| US | 0.962 | 0.779 | 0.701 | 0.235 | 0.259 | 0.328 |
| ~US | 0.222 | 0.366 | 0.455 | 0.856 | 0.858 | 0.812 |
Note: The sign “~” in front of a variable indicates that the current variable does not belong to the target set.
Configurations of high green development levels.
| Condition variables | 2011 | 2015 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA | CB | CC1 | CC2 | |
| EDL | • | • | (•) | (⊗) |
| STIL | (•) | (•) | • | • |
| IS | (•) | |||
| OL | (•) | (•) | (•) | (⊗) |
| ER | (•) | (•) | • | • |
| US | (•) | (•) | (•) | (⊗) |
| Consistency | 0.991 | 0.988 | 0.966 | 0.925 |
| Raw coverage | 0.868 | 0.646 | 0.597 | 0.261 |
| Unique coverage | 0.868 | 0.646 | 0.261 | 0.182 |
| Solution consistency | 0.991 | 0.988 | 0.951 | |
| Solution coverage | 0.868 | 0.646 | 0.779 | |
•/⊗ represent the existence and nonexistence of core conditions, respectively. (•)/(⊗) represent the existence and nonexistence of auxiliary conditions, respectively.
Configurations of low green development levels.
| Condition variables | 2011 | 2015 | 2019 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD1 | CD2 | CD3 | CE1 | CE2 | CE3 | CF1 | CF2 | CF3 | |
| EDL |
|
|
|
|
|
| (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) |
| STIL | (⊗) | (•) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (•) |
|
| |
| IS | (•) | (•) | (•) | (•) | (⊗) | (•) | |||
| OL | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) |
| ER | (⊗) | (•) | (⊗) |
| (•) | ||||
| US | (⊗) | (⊗) | (•) | (⊗) | (•) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (⊗) | (•) |
| Consistency | 0.985 | 0.990 | 1.00 | 0.865 | 0.920 | 0.933 | 0.922 | 0.838 | 0.956 |
| Raw coverage | 0.631 | 0.269 | 0.208 | 0.617 | 0.245 | 0.367 | 0.755 | 0.492 | 0.226 |
| Unique coverage | 0.423 | 0.079 | 0.090 | 0.430 | 0.057 | 0.218 | 0.254 | 0.047 | 0.081 |
| Solution consistency | 0.985 | 0.862 | 0.872 | ||||||
| Solution coverage | 0.800 | 0.902 | 0.883 | ||||||
•/⊗ represent the existence and nonexistence of core conditions, respectively. (•)/(⊗) represent the existence and nonexistence of auxiliary conditions, respectively.