| Literature DB >> 35162702 |
Hui Zhang1, Haiqian Ke1,2.
Abstract
Technical change essentially drives regional social and economic development, and how technical change influences the regional sustainable development of the ecological environment is also of concern. However, technical change is not always neutral, so how does directed technical change affect urban carbon intensity? Is there a spatial spillover effect between these two? In order to answer these above questions, this article first explores the relationship between directed technical change and carbon intensity through the spatial Durbin model; then, it separately analyses whether the relationship between the two in low-carbon and non-low-carbon cities will differ; finally, we performed a robustness test by replacing weights, replacing the explained variable with a lag of one period, and replacing the explained variable. The conclusions are as follows: (1) There is a positive spatial correlation between the carbon intensity of Chinese cities-that is, there is a positive interaction between the carbon intensity of local cities and of neighboring cities. For every 1% change in the carbon intensity of neighboring cities, the carbon intensity of local cities changes by 0.1027% in the same direction. (2) The directed technical change has a significant inhibitory effect on urban carbon intensity, whether in local cities or neighboring cities. However, it is worth mentioning that the direct negative effect is greater in local cities than in neighboring cities. (3) The directed technical change in low-carbon cities has a stronger inhibitory effect on carbon intensity, with a direct effect coefficient of -0.5346 and an indirect effect coefficient of -0.2616. Due to less green policy support in non-low-carbon cities, the inhibitory effect of directed technical change on carbon intensity is weakened; even if the direct effects and indirect effects are superimposed, it is only -0.0510 rather than -0.7962 for low-carbon cities.Entities:
Keywords: carbon intensity; directed technical change; spatial durbin model; urban sustainable development
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162702 PMCID: PMC8835171 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031679
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Roadmap of the paper.
Figure 2Carbon intensity in China, 2008.
Figure 3Carbon intensity in China, 2019.
Data description and source.
| Variable | Name | Symbol | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explained variables | Carbon intensity |
| The ratio of urban carbon emissions to GDP; the basic data can be found in |
| Core explanatory variables | Directed technological change |
| The capital stock is estimated by the perpetual inventory method based on the year 2000; total employment and real GDP are derived from the |
| Control variables | Population density (ratio of urban population to urban area) |
| Data from the |
| Average urban night lights |
| NPP-VIIRS NTL (2014–2019) and DMSP-OLS RNTL (2009–2013), and using the method of Chen et al. (2021) to calibrate inconsistent data sources around 2013 [ | |
| Foreign direct investment |
| Data from the | |
| The proportion of tertiary industry to GDP |
| ||
| Total road passenger transport |
| ||
| The number of full-time college teachers |
| ||
| The ratio of pollution |
|
Statistical description of main variables.
| Variable | Symbol | Unit | Observations | Mean | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon intensity |
| Tons/RMB 10,000 | 3113 | 0.87 | 2.3901 | 0.49 | 4.23 |
| Directed technological change |
| Data have been | 3113 | 0.65 | 0.7907 | 0.32 | 0.98 |
| Population density (ratio of urban population to urban area) |
| Number of | 3113 | 2.16 | 4.0014 | 1.57 | 3.05 |
| Average urban night lights |
| Candela(cd) | 3113 | 3.70 | 5.0668 | 2.11 | 6.94 |
| Foreign direct investment |
| RMB 10,000 | 3113 | 2.60 | 1.4762 | 1.70 | 5.08 |
| The proportion of tertiary industry to GDP |
| % | 3113 | 37.8% | 0.1825 | 28.71% | 76.30% |
| Total road passenger transport |
| 10,000 people | 3113 | 3.59 | 2.2003 | 1.04 | 6.68 |
| The number of full-time college teachers |
| 10,000 people | 3113 | 1.61 | 3.2947 | 2.69 | 5.74 |
| The ratio of pollution control investment to GDP |
| RMB 10,000 | 3113 | 3.98 | 3.0898 | 0.91 | 6.37 |
OLS regression results.
| Explanatory Variable | Coefficient | |
|---|---|---|
|
| −0.0162 *** | (−2.83) |
|
| −0.0024 ** | (−2.30) |
|
| 0.0043 *** | (4.37) |
|
| −0.0624 *** | (−4.92) |
|
| 0.0003 *** | (5.34) |
|
| 0.0048 *** | (4.98) |
|
| −0.0055 | (−0.84) |
|
| −0.2046 * | (−1.86) |
Note: the value of t is in parentheses, and ***, **, and * are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
LM testing results.
| Time and Space Are Not Fixed | Time and Space Are Fixed | Time Is Fixed | Space Is Fixed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LM test of spatial lag effect (LMlag) | 41.47 *** | 52.48 *** | 51.28 ** | 47.59 *** |
| Robust LM test of spatial lag effect (R-LMlag) | 18.93 *** | 46.71 *** | 30.38 ** | 25.73 *** |
| LM test of spatial error effect (LMerr) | 30.65 *** | 9.63 *** | 38.03 ** | 17.92 *** |
| Robust LM test for spatial error effects (R-LMerr) | 1.61 | 2.30 ** | 1.91 * | 29.37 *** |
Note: the value of t is in parentheses, and ***, **, and * are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Results of the SDM.
| Variable | Coeffcient | Lag Coefficient |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Spatial regression coefficient δ | 0.1027 *** | − |
|
| −0.0398 *** | −0.0458 *** |
|
| −0.0624 *** | 0.0620 *** |
|
| 0.0426 *** | 0.3019 *** |
|
| −0.0109 ** | 0.3813 *** |
|
| 0.0167 *** | 0.0299 ** |
|
| 1.5103 *** | 0.0374 *** |
|
| −0.0070 | −0.0903 |
|
| −0.7210 *** | 0.4892 *** |
Note: the value of t is in parentheses, and ***, ** are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, respectively.
Direct and indirect effects of the SDM.
| Variable | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.0472 *** | −0.0259 ** | −0.0731 *** |
|
| 0.4843 | −0.5946 * | −0.1103 * |
|
| 0.0305 ** | 0.5858 *** | 0.6163 *** |
|
| −0.1671 * | −0.0053 ** | −0.1724 *** |
|
| −0.0951 *** | −0.0054 ** | −0.1005 *** |
|
| 0.2376 ** | 0.0374 *** | 0.2750 *** |
|
| 0.0447 | 0.0013 | 0.0460 |
|
| −0.8181 * | 0.3024 *** | −0.5157 *** |
|
| 0.2857 ** | ||
| R2 | 0.68 | ||
| likelihood ratio | 1329.0971 | ||
Note: the value of t is in parentheses, and ***, **, and * are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Low-carbon cities and non-low-carbon cities.
| Low-Carbon Cities | Non-Low-Carbon Cities | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect |
|
| −0.5346 *** | −0.2616 *** | −0.7962 ** | −0.0436 ** | −0.0074 ** | −0.0510 ** |
|
| −0.3478 ** | −0.1791 * | −0.5269 * | 0.0421 ** | 0.0191 * | 0.0612 * |
|
| 0.1200 *** | 0.0132 ** | 0.1332 ** | 0.0142 * | 0.0124 * | 0.0266 ** |
|
| −0.1236 ** | −0.0981 ** | −0.2217 ** | −0.0188 *** | −0.0020 *** | −0.0208 *** |
|
| −0.1028 ** | 0.0145 * | 0.0883 * | 0.0033 ** | 0.0174 * | 0.0207 ** |
|
| 0.0337 ** | 0.0294 * | 0.0631 * | 0.0013 ** | 0.0066 * | 0.0079 ** |
|
| 0.1394 | 0.0110 | 0.1504 | 0.0411 | 0.0007 | 0.0418 |
|
| −1.1082 *** | −0.0201 *** | −1.1283 *** | 0.1313 ** | −0.0507 ** | 0.0806 ** |
| Rho | 0.1793 ** | 0.2667 ** | ||||
| R2 | 0.76 | 0.69 | ||||
| Likelihood ratio | 1319.8709 | 783.9702 | ||||
Note: the value of t is in parentheses, and ***, **, and * are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Robustness test.
| Replacement of Geographic Weights | Dynamic Durbin Model | Replacement of the | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect |
|
| −1.0453 *** | −0.0726 ** | −0.0203 ** | −0.0169 * | −0.0266 *** | −0.0116 ** |
|
| 0.0068 ** | 0.0205 * | 0.0014 * | 0.0167 ** | 0.0031 *** | 0.0086 *** |
|
| 0.0042 *** | 0.0076 ** | 0.1236 ** | 0.0009 ** | 0.0051 *** | 0.0312 *** |
|
| −0.0136 ** | −0.0199 ** | −0.0410 *** | −0.0209 *** | −0.5134 ** | −0.7758 *** |
|
| 0.0019 ** | 0.0025 * | 0.0424 ** | 0.0086 *** | 0.0072 ** | 0.0058 ** |
|
| 0.0414 *** | 0.0015 * | 0.0009 * | 0.0180 ** | 0.0027 * | −0.0222 ** |
|
| 0.0085 | 0.0106 | 0.0007 | 0.0281 | 0.0016 | 0.0459 |
|
| −0.0709 *** | 0.0172 *** | −0.9781 *** | 0.0338 ** | −0.0404 ** | 0.0016 ** |
| Rho | 0.2913 *** | 0.1433 *** | 0.0136 *** | |||
| R2 | 0.64 | 0.49 | 0.72 | |||
| Likelihood ratio | 838.7348 | 1092.5382 | 1205.9276 | |||
Note: the value of t is in parentheses, and ***, **, and * are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.