| Literature DB >> 35133587 |
Han Sun1,2, Xiaohui Yang3, Zhihui Leng1.
Abstract
Haze pollution poses a serious threat to residents' health. In this study, a spatial econometric model of environmental health was established to investigate the direction, intensity, and spatial-temporal heterogeneity of the impact of haze pollution and its spillover effects on public health in 26 cities of the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomerations from 2005 to 2018. The study found that (1) PM2.5 pollution and public health level all show the characteristic of positive spatial correlation and spatial clustering. (2) Haze pollution is the main influencing factor of residents' public health level, with significant negative effects and obvious spillover effects. The urbanization rate, the number of health technicians, and the green area per capita have significant positive impacts on public health. (3) The spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the impact of haze pollution and other factors on public health is obvious. The negative correlation between PM2.5 pollution and public health in eastern cities is higher than that in other cities. Both urbanization rate and green area per capita have a greater positive impact on public health in the northeast of the Yangtze River Delta region. The improvement effect of the number of health technicians on the public health is stronger in the cities of Anhui Province. The research results of this paper provide certain support for the city governments to formulate targeted policies.Entities:
Keywords: Haze pollution; Public health; Spatial and temporal heterogeneity; Spatial correlation; Spatial effects; Yangtze River Delta urban agglomerations
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35133587 PMCID: PMC8824732 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-19017-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 1Study area
Descriptive statistics of variables
| Variable | Symbol | Description | Unit | Mean | Std.Dev | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained variable | H | Number of deaths from respiratory diseases | person | 227.1 | 189.7 | 11.76 | 1251 |
| Core explanatory variables | PM2.5 | Annual average concentration of PM2.5 | μg/m3 | 50.45 | 11.2 | 20.39 | 73.16 |
| Economic indicator | PDI | Per capita disposable income of urban households | CNY | 23,616 | 8829 | 7882 | 48,343 |
| Social indicator | urban | The urbanization rate | % | 60.9 | 12.18 | 30.7 | 89.6 |
| pd | The population density | person /km2 | 762.1 | 624.4 | 189 | 3826 | |
Health care indicator | num_tech | Number of health technicians per ten thousand people | person | 53.16 | 16.08 | 19.59 | 119.7 |
| hpe | Per capita expenditure on health care in urban households | CNY | 875.4 | 337.5 | 263.8 | 3414 | |
| Life indicator | green | Green area per capita | m2 | 52.36 | 33.13 | 6.333 | 197.8 |
Fig. 2Recognition of spatial correlation between air pollution and public health. H stands for public health level. The 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels are represented by the *, **, and ***, respectively
Fig. 3Local Moran’s I index of a respiratory disease deaths in 2005; b PM2.5 concentration in 2005; c respiratory disease deaths in 2011; d PM2.5 concentration in 2011; e respiratory disease deaths in 2018; f PM2.5 concentration in 2018
Setting the panel data model without spatial effect
| OLS | Spatial fixed effect | Temporal fixed effect | Spatial–temporal effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| constant | − 11.6363*** (− 8.9745) | |||
| lnPM2.5 | 1.5813*** (10.9816) | 1.3884*** (25.3935) | 1.6933*** (9.8562) | 1.3478*** (13.3265) |
| lnPDI | 1.1150*** (7.2620) | 0.7668*** (15.3645) | 1.1954*** (5.4156) | 0.2350 (1.4856) |
| lnurban | 0.1841 (0.6336) | − 0.5868*** (− 5.0348) | 0.1952 (0.6316) | − 0.5409*** (− 5.4803) |
| Lnpd | 0.6550*** (8.8063) | − 0.0284 (− − 0.5571) | 0.6396*** (7.9491) | − 0.0118 (− 0.2710) |
| lnnum_tech | − 1.0290*** (− 5.4121) | − 0.4691*** (− 6.2796) | − 1.0685*** (− 5.3220) | − 0.5455*** (− 8.4112) |
| Lnhpe | − 0.0118 (− 0.1002) | 0.0042 (0.1321) | − 0.0234 (− 0.1964) | 0.0048 (0.1764) |
| lngreen | − 0.3646*** (− 5.7118) | − 0.0914*** (− 4.2632) | − 0.3681*** (− 5.6552) | − 0.0816*** (− 4.5373) |
| R2 | 0.4955 | 0.7285 | 0.4822 | 0.5627 |
| σ2 | 0.3293 | 0.0134 | 0.3223 | 0.0092 |
| D − W | 1.7377 | 0.6290 | 1.7558 | 0.9736 |
| Log − L | − 310.2726 | 271.5279 | − 306.9022 | 339.7386 |
| LM lag | 0.8613 | 120.8406*** | 1.0218 | 34.9504*** |
| LM error | 7.0547*** | 149.1894*** | 10.2915*** | 46.0375*** |
| Robust LM lag | 6.1151** | 1.7685 | 12.5481*** | 0.3988 |
| Robust LM error | 12.3085*** | 30.1173*** | 21.8179*** | 11.4858*** |
The 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels are represented by the *, **, and ***, respectively
T statistical value is indicated in brackets
SDM estimation results
| Spatial fixed effect | Temporal fixed effect | Spatial–temporal effect | Spatial–temporal effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnPM2.5 | 1.4652*** | 0.4337 | 1.566*** | 1.5740*** |
| (8.0472) | (1.3567) | (8.9708) | (8.5925) | |
| lnPDI | 0.1368 | 0.6157** | 0.1690 | 0.1591 |
| (0.9195) | (1.9707) | (1.1635) | (1.0444) | |
| lnurban | − 0.5875*** | − 0.6904** | − 0.5588*** | − 0.5680*** |
| (− 6.3777) | (− 2.1327) | (− 6.4016) | (− 6.2042) | |
| Lnpd | − 0.0009 | 0.7602*** | − 0.0097 | − 0.0084 |
| (− 0.0228) | (9.2556) | (− 0.2503) | (− 0.2067) | |
| lnnum_tech | − 0.4808*** | − 0.6426*** | − 0.5034*** | − 0.4984*** |
| (− 8.0345) | (− 3.5224) | (− 8.8503) | (− 8.3539) | |
| Lnhpe | − 0.0064 | 0.1087 | − 0.0102 | − 0.0100 |
| (− 0.2547) | (1.0096) | (− 0.4225) | (− 0.3963) | |
| lngreen | − 0.0740*** | − 0.2123*** | − 0.0885*** | − 0.0851*** |
| (− 4.2540) | (− 3.4612) | (− 5.2444) | (− 4.8165) | |
| W*lnPM2.5 | − 0.9225*** | 3.0008*** | − 1.1133*** | − 1.2050*** |
| (− 4.6064) | (5.8998) | (94.5157) | (− 4.7057) | |
| W*lnPDI | 0.2112 | 2.5741*** | 0.2348 | 0.2002 |
| (1.2254) | (4.5949) | (0.9091) | (0.7394) | |
| W*lnurban | 0.7857*** | − 4.5107*** | 0.7887*** | 0.8160*** |
| (3.7287) | (− 5.6058) | (3.8202) | (3.7718) | |
| W*lnpd | − 0.1277 | 0.3605** | − 0.1007 | − 0.0971 |
| (− 1.5336) | (2.0425) | (− 1.1676) | (− 1.0735) | |
| W*lnnum_tech | 0.1947* | 1.0964*** | − 0.0128 | 0.0348 |
| (1.8579) | (2.7640) | (− 0.1160) | (0.3035) | |
| W*lnhpe | 0.0095 | 0.4576** | 0.0247 | 0.0246 |
| (0.2101) | (2.1389) | (0.5302) | (0.5045) | |
| W*lngreen | − 0.1513*** | − 0.1731 | − 0.2168*** | − 0.2048*** |
| (− 3.2440) | (− 1.1222) | (− 4.5172) | (− 4.0786) | |
| σ2 | 0.0079 | 0.2308 | 0.0068 | 0.0075 |
| R2 | 0.9885 | 0.6524 | 0.9893 | 0.9894 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.763 | 0.6159 | 0.6243 | 0.6243 |
| Log-L | 358.7278 | − 248.0857 | 383.4405 | 383.4405 |
| Wald_lag | 59.2761*** | |||
| LR_lag | 54.4850*** | |||
| Wald_error | 43.0194*** | |||
| LR_error | 40.5219*** | |||
The 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels are represented by the *, **, and ***, respectively
T statistical value is indicated in brackets
Direct, indirect, and total effect of the SDM model with dual fixed effect
| Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect | |
|---|---|---|---|
| lnPM2.5 | 1.5057*** (9.0037) | − 0.8118** (− 2.6410) | 0.6939*** (2.8340) |
| lnPDI | 0.1945 (1.3106) | 0.5018 (1.0850) | 0.6962 (1.3268) |
| lnurban | − 0.4882*** (− 4.5051) | 0.9523** (2.4026) | 0.4641 (0.9905) |
| lnpd | − 0.0226 (− 0.5361) | − 0.1761 (− 1.1409) | − 0.1987 (− 1.1625) |
| lnnum_tech | − 0.5279*** (− 8.1287) | − 0.3389* (− 1.8247) | − 0.8668*** (− 3.9707) |
| lnhpe | − 0.0067 (− 0.2426) | 0.0349 (0.3976) | 0.0282 (0.2721) |
| lngreen | − 0.1199*** (− 5.5068) | − 0.4243*** (− 4.4507) | − 0.5442*** (− 4.8981) |
The 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels are represented by the *, **, and ***, respectively
T statistical value is indicated in brackets
Robustness test results
| Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect | |
|---|---|---|---|
| lnPM2.5 | 1.5544*** (9.1464) | − 0.6521** (− 2.3237) | 0.9023*** (4.0567) |
| lnPDI | 0.1905 (1.2483) | 0.4032 (0.9237) | 0.5937 (1.1909) |
| lnurban | − 0.5258*** (− 4.8013) | 0.6055* (1.7378) | 0.0796 (0.1899) |
| lnpd | − 0.0187 (− 0.4321) | − 0.1197 (− 0.7980) | − 0.1384 (− 0.8382) |
| lnnum_tech | − 0.5264*** (− 7.8752) | − 0.2915 (− 1.6666) | − 0.8179*** (− 3.9134) |
| lnhpe | 0.0023 (0.0794) | − 0.0437 (− 0.5417) | − 0.0414 (− 0.4271) |
| lngreen | − 0.0925*** (− 4.5002) | − 0.1856*** (− 2.9457) | − 0.2782*** (− 3.6039) |
The 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels are represented by the *, **, and ***, respectively
T statistical value is indicated in brackets
Comparison of accuracy under different models
| Weight decay type | Adjusted R2 | Bandwidth | Observations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS | – | 0.4856 | – | 364 |
| GWR | Gaussian | 0.7609 | 1.1035 | 26 |
| Exponential | 0.6968 | 2.2925 | 26 | |
| Tricube | 0.7058 | – | 26 | |
| PGTWR | – | 0.9902 | – | 364 |
Estimates of the overall statistical properties of the model with the four effects
| Mixed effect | Spatial fixed effect | Temporal fixed effect | Spatial–temporal effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significant ratio of local coefficient estimates | 0.6466 | 0.6727 | 0.5436 | 0.6432 |
| Observations | 364 | 364 | 364 | 364 |
| Degree of freedom | 106 | 106 | 106 | 107 |
| Estimated value of variance of random disturbance term | 4.6108 | 0.2426 | 1.9302 | 5.5862 |
| CV | 488.742 | 25.7151 | 204.6038 | 597.7257 |
| GCV | 0.0039 | 0.0002 | 0.0016 | 0.0047 |
| AICc | 1610.3 | 537.1661 | 1291.3 | 1679.1 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.9992 | 0.9902 | − 11.5822 | 1 |
| F | 105,280 | 127,320 | 39.2604 | 1,068,000,000 |
| Probability of F statistic value | 3.0049E-195 | 5.3519E-142 | 8.7249E-20 | 1.1722E-318 |
| Log-L | − 794.6616 | − 258.7158 | − 636.1834 | − 829.5888 |
Description statistics of PGTWR parameter estimation
| Min | LQ | Mean | UQ | Max | Std.Dev | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local_lnPM2.5 | 1.1301 | 1.3492 | 1.4458 | 1.5227 | 1.8140 | 0.1564 |
| Local_lnPDI | 0.4239 | 0.6146 | 0.6964 | 0.7919 | 0.9453 | 0.1252 |
| Local_lnurban | − 0.6155 | − 0.4227 | − 0.3703 | − 0.3084 | − 0.1484 | 0.0857 |
| Local_lnpd | − 0.2721 | − 0.1128 | − 0.0897 | − 0.0539 | 0.0246 | 0.0520 |
| Local_lnnum_tech | − 0.7553 | − 0.4866 | − 0.3763 | − 0.2454 | − 0.0857 | 0.1637 |
| Local_lnhpe | − 0.3292 | − 0.1671 | − 0.1236 | − 0.0792 | − 0.0085 | 0.0689 |
| Local_lngreen | − 0.1018 | − 0.0917 | − 0.0756 | − 0.0647 | 0.0064 | 0.0216 |
Fig. 4Coefficients for each region at different times. a Coefficients of PM2.5 pollution (PM2.5); b coefficients of per capita disposable income of urban households (PDI); c coefficients of urbanization rate (urban); d coefficients of population density (pd); e coefficients of number of health technicians per ten thousand people (num_tech); f coefficients of per capita expenditure on health care in urban households (hpe); g coefficients of green space per capita (green)
Fig. 5Results of PGTWR of factors in 16 cities in YRD. a Average coefficient of PM2.5 pollution (PM2.5). b Average coefficient of per capita disposable income of urban households (PDI). c Average coefficient of urbanization rate (urban). d Average coefficient of population density (pd). e Average coefficient of the number of health technicians per ten thousand people (num_tech). f Average coefficient of per capita expenditure on health care in urban households (hpe). g Average coefficient of green space per capita (green)