| Literature DB >> 35010856 |
Wenqin Gong1, Yu Kong1,2.
Abstract
Environmental pollution is a problem of universal concern throughout the globe. The development of real estate industry not only consumes huge resources, but also has close ties with high-consumption industries such as the construction industry. However, previous studies have rarely explored the impact of real estate development on environmental pollution. Therefore, this paper employs the entropy method to construct a comprehensive index of environmental pollution based on panel data of 31 provinces in China from 2000 to 2017, and empirically examines the impact of real estate development on environmental pollution. This article uses real estate investment to measure the development of the real estate industry. In view of the high spatial autocorrelation of environmental pollution, this paper selects a spatial econometric model. The empirical study found that: (1) By using the Spatial Durbin Model, real estate development has an inverted U-shaped impact on environmental pollution. Meanwhile, most cities have not yet reached the turning point; that is, with the continuous development of the real estate industry, environmental pollution will continue to increase. (2) Further regional heterogeneity found that the inverted U-shaped relationship still exists in coastal and inland areas. (3) Finally, this article used the Spatial Mediation Model to explain the nonlinear impact of real estate development on environmental pollution, with two important mediating variables: population density and industrial structure. Through the above analysis, it can be observed that real estate development has a significant impact on environmental pollution. Thus, the country and the government can reduce environmental pollution by improving the investment structure, using environmentally friendly building materials, guiding population flow and promoting industrial upgrading.Entities:
Keywords: Spatial Durbin Model; Spatial Mediation Model; entropy method; environmental pollution; mediation effect; real estate development
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010856 PMCID: PMC8744668 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Analysis framework.
Moran’s I of environmental pollution.
| Year | Moran’s I | sd(I) | z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 0.222 | 0.119 | 2.151 | 0.016 |
| 2001 | 0.234 | 0.118 | 2.255 | 0.012 |
| 2002 | 0.240 | 0.118 | 2.308 | 0.011 |
| 2003 | 0.240 | 0.118 | 2.306 | 0.011 |
| 2004 | 0.219 | 0.118 | 2.140 | 0.016 |
| 2005 | 0.245 | 0.119 | 2.345 | 0.010 |
| 2006 | 0.259 | 0.119 | 2.460 | 0.007 |
| 2007 | 0.256 | 0.119 | 2.441 | 0.007 |
| 2008 | 0.265 | 0.118 | 2.521 | 0.006 |
| 2009 | 0.259 | 0.118 | 2.467 | 0.007 |
| 2010 | 0.229 | 0.118 | 2.218 | 0.013 |
| 2011 | 0.224 | 0.116 | 2.226 | 0.013 |
| 2012 | 0.204 | 0.116 | 2.051 | 0.020 |
| 2013 | 0.188 | 0.116 | 1.905 | 0.028 |
| 2014 | 0.228 | 0.116 | 2.244 | 0.012 |
| 2015 | 0.258 | 0.117 | 2.491 | 0.006 |
| 2016 | 0.179 | 0.115 | 1.845 | 0.033 |
| 2017 | 0.135 | 0.118 | 1.430 | 0.076 |
Figure 2LISA cluster map of pollution in China for the years: (a) 2000; (b) 2008; (c) 2013; (d) 2017. (Note: The LISA cluster map of environmental pollution was analyzed by Geoda (Dr. Luc Anselin) software.).
Variable description.
| Variable | Description | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| pollution | Wastewater discharge, SO2 discharge, soot discharge and industrial solid waste production are constructed by entropy method | / |
| realestate | Completed real estate investment/GDP | % |
| pgdp | Real per capita GDP, based on 2000 | yuan |
| open | Total import and export/GDP | % |
| gover | Local fiscal expenditure/GDP | % |
| finance | Loan balance of financial institutions/GDP | % |
| edu | Number of full-time teachers in colleges and universities per 10,000 people | people |
| bus | Public transport vehicles per 10,000 people | vehicle |
| popden | Population/area of each province | People/km2 |
| indus | Added value of secondary industry/GDP | % |
The result of LR test.
| Likelihood-ratio test | LR chi2(10) = 195.4 |
| (Assumption: sar_a nested in sdm_a) | Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 |
| Likelihood-ratio test | LR chi2(10) = 237.91 |
| (Assumption: sem_a nested in sdm_a) | Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 |
Regression results of SDM.
| Variable | Main | WX | Direct Effect | Spillover Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnrealestate | 3.582 *** | −1.005 | 3.730 *** | −1.726 *** |
| (10.708) | (−1.194) | (10.859) | (−2.763) | |
| lnrealestate2 | −0.567 *** | 0.032 | −0.585 *** | 0.177 |
| (−6.976) | (0.152) | (−6.981) | (1.061) | |
| lnpgdp | −160.101 *** | −13.380 *** | −157.789 *** | 27.685 ** |
| (−3.600) | (−4.255) | (−3.644) | (2.079) | |
| lnpgdp2 | 16.290 *** | 2.977 *** | 15.924 *** | −1.511 |
| (3.405) | (4.653) | (3.430) | (−1.052) | |
| lnpgdp3 | −0.548 *** | −0.146 *** | −0.532 *** | 0.013 |
| (−3.209) | (−4.325) | (−3.217) | (0.253) | |
| lnopen | −1.022 *** | −0.734 *** | −0.988 *** | −0.325 * |
| (−9.932) | (−3.211) | (−9.546) | (−1.950) | |
| lngover | −4.720 *** | 2.317 *** | −4.958 *** | 3.050 *** |
| (−25.878) | (5.639) | (−25.020) | (11.598) | |
| lnfinance | 1.722 *** | −1.921 *** | 1.874 *** | −2.005 *** |
| (6.932) | (−3.746) | (7.539) | (−4.809) | |
| lnedu | −0.194 ** | −0.666 *** | −0.150 * | −0.474 ** |
| (−2.387) | (−2.780) | (−1.900) | (−2.434) | |
| lnbus | −1.894 *** | −2.179 *** | −1.786 *** | −1.270 *** |
| (−10.286) | (−5.810) | (−9.659) | (−4.052) |
Note: t value of the coefficient is in parentheses, ***, ** and * indicate significant at the level of 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively; lnrealestate2 represents the quadratic term of lnrealestate.
Three new regions and their scope.
| Coastal areas (10) | Liaoning, Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Shandong, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong |
| Inland areas (13) | Sichuan, Chongqing, Guizhou, Hubei, Hunan, Anhui, Qinghai, Jiangxi, Gansu, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Henan |
| Border areas (8) | Heilongjiang, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, Yunnan, Guangxi, Hainan |
Regression results of SDM in each region.
| Region | Variable | Direct Effect | Spillover Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coastal areas | lnrealestate | 2.195 *** | −1.418 |
| (3.292) | (−1.105) | ||
| lnrealestate2 | −0.370 *** | 0.201 | |
| (−2.934) | (0.739) | ||
| Control variables | YES | YES | |
| Inland areas | lnrealestate | 0.592 *** | −0.451 |
| (2.717) | (−0.947) | ||
| lnrealestate2 | −0.260 *** | −0.084 | |
| (−4.913) | (−0.712) | ||
| Control variables | YES | YES | |
| Border areas | lnrealestate | −0.485 | −0.938 ** |
| (−0.893) | (−1.964) | ||
| lnrealestate2 | 0.143 | 0.168 | |
| (1.082) | (1.013) | ||
| Control variables | YES | YES |
Note: t value of the coefficient is in parentheses, *** and ** indicate significant at the level of 1% and 5%, respectively; lnrealestate2 represents the quadratic term of lnrealestate.
Figure 3The mechanism of the impact of real estate development on environmental pollution.
Regression results of Spatial Mediation Model.
| Variable | lnpollution | lnindus | lnpollution | lnpopden | lnpollution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnrealestate | 3.582 *** | 0.200 *** | 2.899 *** | 0.735 *** | 3.417 *** |
| (10.708) | (5.165) | (8.963) | (3.870) | (10.203) | |
| lnrealestate2 | −0.567 *** | −0.043 *** | −0.415 *** | −0.218 *** | −0.520 *** |
| (−6.976) | (−4.516) | (−5.279) | (−4.727) | (−6.346) | |
| ln | 2.808 *** | 0.222 *** | |||
| (7.603) | (2.969) | ||||
| lnpgdp | −160.101 *** | −48.138 *** | −7.983 | 54.755 ** | −168.935 *** |
| (−3.600) | (−9.365) | (−0.176) | (2.171) | (−3.818) | |
| lnpgdp2 | 16.290 *** | 5.459 *** | −0.950 | −6.155 ** | 17.333 *** |
| (3.405) | (9.874) | (−0.193) | (−2.269) | (3.642) | |
| lnpgdp3 | −0.548 *** | −0.205 *** | 0.099 | 0.226 ** | −0.588 *** |
| (−3.209) | (−10.382) | (0.557) | (2.337) | (−3.460) | |
| lnopen | −1.022 *** | −0.076 *** | −0.815 *** | 0.110 * | −1.053 *** |
| (−9.932) | (−6.395) | (−8.038) | (1.879) | (−10.280) | |
| lngover | −4.720 *** | −0.039 * | −4.738 *** | −0.238 ** | −4.732 *** |
| (−25.878) | (−1.915) | (−26.869) | (−2.360) | (−25.494) | |
| lnfinance | 1.722 *** | 0.120 *** | 1.315 *** | 0.058 | 1.739 *** |
| (6.932) | (4.163) | (5.542) | (0.410) | (6.980) | |
| lnedu | −0.194 ** | −0.007 | −0.153 ** | 0.023 | −0.196 ** |
| (−2.387) | (−0.712) | (−1.994) | (0.488) | (−2.422) | |
| lnbus | −1.894 *** | −0.142 *** | −1.494 *** | 0.633 *** | −2.049 *** |
| (−10.286) | (−6.744) | (−8.048) | (6.142) | (−10.916) |
Note: t value of the coefficient is in parentheses, ***, ** and * indicate significant at the level of 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively; lnrealestate2 represents the quadratic term of lnrealestate.