| Literature DB >> 35013948 |
Chai Ziyuan1,2, Yan Yibo1,2, Zibibula Simayi3,4, Yang Shengtian1,5, Maliyamuguli Abulimiti1,2, Wang Yuqing1,2.
Abstract
In the present study, the STIRPAT model was adopted to examine the impacts of several factors on dioxide emissions using the time series data from 2000 to 2019 in Xinjiang. The said factors included population aging, urbanization, household size, per capita GDP, number of vehicles, per capita mutton consumption, education level, and household direct energy consumption structure. Findings were made that the positive effects of urbanization, per capita GDP, per capita mutton consumption and education on carbon emissions were obvious; the number of vehicles had the biggest positive impact on carbon dioxide emissions; and household size and household direct energy consumption structure had a significantly negative impact on carbon emissions. Based on the aforementioned findings, the GA-BP neural network was introduced to predict the carbon emission trend of Xinjiang in 2020-2050. The results reveal that the peak time of the low-carbon scenario was the earliest, between 2029 and 2033. The peak time of the middle scenario was later than low-carbon scenario, between 2032 and 2037, while the peak time of the high-carbon scenario was the latest and was unlikely to reach the peak before 2050.Entities:
Keywords: Carbon emissions prediction; GA-BP neural network; Index decomposition; STIRPAT model
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35013948 PMCID: PMC8747851 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-17976-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1Study area
Indicator description
| Indicators | Descriptions | Units |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon emissions (I) | Carbon dioxide emissions | Mt |
| Aging (PP1) | Proportion of population aged 65 and over | % |
| Urbanization (PP2) | Urban population as a percentage of the total population | % |
| Household size (PP3) | The average number of people in a household | units |
| Per capital GDP (PA1) | The ratio of gross domestic product to total population | $ |
| Number of vehicles (PA2) | Number of cars per 100 households | Units |
| Per capita mutton consumption (PA3) | The average amount of mutton consumed per person per year | kg |
| Education level (PT1) | Proportion of the population with a college degree or higher | % |
| Household direct consumption of energy structure (PT2) | Coal consumption as a percentage of total energy consumption | % |
Fig. 2Correlation thermodynamic diagram of each index
OLS results
| Indicators | Unnormalized coefficient | Sig | VIF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnI | 1.685 | 0.748 | 0.474 | |
| lnPP1 | 0.463 | 0.403 | 0.696 | 140.905 |
| lnPP2 | − 0.096 | − 0.374 | 0.717 | 2.673 |
| lnPP3 | 0.12 | 1.229 | 0.25 | 10.33 |
| lnPA1 | 0.292 | 0.912 | 0.385 | 248.345 |
| lnPA2 | 0.169 | 4.795 | 0.001 | 18.7 |
| lnPA3 | 0.074 | 0.421 | 0.684 | 4.251 |
| lnPT1 | − 0.759 | − 1.118 | 0.292 | 9.841 |
| lnPT2 | − 0.235 | − 1.807 | 0.104 | 7.034 |
Ridge regression results
| Indicators | Coefficient | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| lnPP1 | 0.059 | 0.27 | |
| lnPP2 | 0.106 | 0.000 | |
| lnPP3 | − 0.15 | 0.984 | |
| lnPA1 | 0.104 | ||
| lnPA2 | 0.175 | ||
| lnPA3 | 0.099 | ||
| lnPT1 | 0.101 | ||
| lnPT2 | − 0.167 |
Fig. 3Performance comparison of BP-GA method in Xinjiang carbon emission prediction
Fig. 4Performance analysis of the BP-GA method in the training, testing, and validation phases
Scenario setting of aging development in Xinjiang
| 2020–2030 | 2031–2050 | |
|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon scenario | 2.26% | 2.55% |
| Middle scenario | 2.36% | 2.65% |
| High-carbon scenario | 2.46% | 2.75% |
Urbanization development scenario in Xinjiang
| 2020–2025 | 2026–2030 | 2031–2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon scenario | 2.55% | 2.03% | 0.37% |
| Middle scenario | 2.75% | 2.23% | 0.57% |
| High-carbon scenario | 2.95% | 2.43% | 0.77% |
Development scenario of household size in Xinjiang
| 2020–2030 | 2031–2050 | |
|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon scenario | − 1.81% | − 0.61% |
| Middle scenario | − 1.51% | − 0.40% |
| High-carbon scenario | − 1.23% | − 0.20% |
Development scenario of Xinjiang’s per capita GDP
| 2020–2025 | 2025–2035 | 2036–2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon scenario | 5.7% | 5.1% | 3.9% |
| Middle scenario | 5.9% | 5.3% | 4.0% |
| High-carbon scenario | 5.1% | 5.5% | 4.1% |
Development scenario of number of vehicles in Xinjiang
| 2020–2030 | 2031–2050 | |
|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon scenario | 3.07% | 1.0% |
| Middle scenario | 3.77% | 1.5% |
| High-carbon scenario | 4.44% | 2.0% |
Development scenario of per capita mutton consumption in Xinjiang
| 2020–2025 | 2026–2035 | 2036–2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon scenario | 0.75% | − 1.3% | 0% |
| Middle scenario | 0.8% | − 1.1% | 0% |
| High-carbon scenario | 0.85% | − 0.9% | 0% |
Development scenario of Education level in Xinjiang
| 2020–2035 | 2036–2050 | |
|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon scenario | 2.41% | 1.39% |
| Middle scenario | 3.73% | 2.29% |
| High-carbon scenario | 4.85% | 3.09% |
Development scenario of Household direct consumption of energy structure
| 2020–2030 | 2031–2050 | |
|---|---|---|
| Low-carbon scenario | − 1.427% | − 10.76% |
| Middle scenario | − 0.924% | − 7.07% |
| High-carbon scenario | − 0.449% | − 3.35% |
Scenario description and classification
| P | A | T | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnPP1 | lnPP2 | lnPP3 | LnPA1 | LnPA2 | LnPA3 | LnPT1 | LnPT2 | |
| L1 | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| L2 | M | L | M | L | L | M | M | L |
| L3 | H | L | H | L | L | H | H | L |
| M1 | L | M | L | M | M | L | L | M |
| M2 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M |
| M3 | H | M | H | M | M | H | H | M |
| H1 | L | H | L | H | H | L | L | H |
| H2 | M | H | M | H | H | M | M | H |
| H3 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H |
Fig. 5(a), (b), and (c), respectively, show the specific prediction of the three scenarios