| Literature DB >> 35223746 |
Rubiao Shi1,2, Muhammad Irfan3,4,5, Guangliang Liu6,7, Xiaodong Yang6,7, Xufeng Su6,7,8.
Abstract
Carbon emissions of animal husbandry have been gaining increasing attention due to their high share in global carbon emissions. In this regard, it is essential to assess the regional differences, dynamic evolution patterns, convergence characteristics, and the impact of livestock structure on carbon emissions of animal husbandry. Using data from 30 provincial administrative regions from 2000 to 2018 in China, this study employs the Thiel index method, kernel density analysis, and convergence analysis to quantify the impact of livestock structure on carbon emissions of animal husbandry. The statistical results reveal that carbon emissions of animal husbandry exhibit a rising and declining trend. Specifically, the carbon emissions of animal husbandry are highest in agricultural areas (with a declining trend), followed by agro-pastoral areas (with a declining trend), and the pastoral areas (with a rising trend). It is further revealed that there are no δ convergence and β convergence of carbon emissions of animal husbandry. Finally, essential and useful policy recommendations are put forward to inhibit carbon emissions of animal husbandry.Entities:
Keywords: animal husbandry; carbon emission; geographical heterogeneity; livestock breeding; livestock structure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35223746 PMCID: PMC8873578 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.835210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Trends of per capita meat consumption (unit: kg) in China. China statistical yearbook.
Carbon emissions coefficient of animal husbandry in China (unit: Kg/head/year).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Pig | 1 | 3.5 | 0.53 | 25 | 87.5 | 157.9 | 270.4 |
| Rabbit | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 6.125 | 2 | 5.96 | 14.09 |
| Poultry | 0 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.5 | 5.96 | 6.46 |
| Cow | 68 | 16 | 1 | 1,700 | 400 | 298 | 2,398 |
| Beef cattle | 51.4 | 1.5 | 1.37 | 1,285 | 37.5 | 408.3 | 1,731 |
| Horse | 18 | 1.64 | 1.39 | 450 | 41 | 414.2 | 905.2 |
| Donkey | 10 | 0.9 | 1.39 | 250 | 22.5 | 414.2 | 686.7 |
| Mule | 10 | 0.9 | 1.39 | 250 | 22.5 | 414.2 | 686.7 |
| Goat | 5 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 125 | 4.25 | 98.34 | 227.6 |
| Sheep | 5 | 0.15 | 0.33 | 125 | 3.75 | 98.34 | 227.1 |
| Camel | 46 | 1.92 | 1.39 | 1,150 | 48 | 414.2 | 1,612 |
G1 denotes the fermentation of intestines and stomach, G2 denotes the fermentation of feces.
Variable definitions.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC | 570 | 12,109.06 | 8,790.986 | 413.58 | 45,345.33 |
| STU | 570 | 71.91384 | 23.68239 | 0.38 | 97.66 |
| IND | 570 | 87.8303 | 6.492473 | 63.55 | 99.68 |
| URB | 570 | 50.50621 | 15.02015 | 23.2 | 89.6 |
| INC | 570 | 7,078.021 | 5,109.673 | 1,374.16 | 30,374.73 |
| POS | 570 | 118,622.7 | 71,148.22 | 4,987 | 281,181.4 |
| ENG | 570 | 38.97044 | 8.003126 | 23.78 | 62.68 |
Figure 2Calculated results of carbon emissions of animal husbandry from 2000 to 2018 (unit: thousand tons).
Figure 3Change and distribution of carbon emissions of animal husband.
Theil index of carbon emissions of animal husbandry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 2000 | 0.2551 | 0.0235 | 0.2063 | 0.3075 |
| 2001 | 0.2515 | 0.0213 | 0.2082 | 0.3018 |
| 2002 | 0.2514 | 0.0211 | 0.2070 | 0.3024 |
| 2003 | 0.2489 | 0.0271 | 0.1939 | 0.3018 |
| 2004 | 0.2531 | 0.0397 | 0.1826 | 0.3089 |
| 2005 | 0.2571 | 0.0513 | 0.1807 | 0.3126 |
| 2006 | 0.2643 | 0.0593 | 0.1821 | 0.3207 |
| 2007 | 0.2638 | 0.0569 | 0.1700 | 0.3172 |
| 2008 | 0.2634 | 0.0550 | 0.1685 | 0.3028 |
| 2009 | 0.2682 | 0.0784 | 0.1674 | 0.2946 |
| 2010 | 0.2539 | 0.0878 | 0.1404 | 0.2828 |
| 2011 | 0.2463 | 0.0771 | 0.1209 | 0.2878 |
| 2012 | 0.2462 | 0.0680 | 0.1223 | 0.2919 |
| 2013 | 0.2447 | 0.0600 | 0.1200 | 0.2928 |
| 2014 | 0.2470 | 0.0583 | 0.1194 | 0.2972 |
| 2015 | 0.2545 | 0.0631 | 0.1195 | 0.3058 |
| 2016 | 0.2561 | 0.0611 | 0.1181 | 0.3080 |
| 2017 | 0.2554 | 0.0537 | 0.1208 | 0.3024 |
| 2018 | 0.2602 | 0.0511 | 0.1320 | 0.2987 |
Figure 4Dynamic changes of carbon emissions of animal husbandry result. (A) The total area. (B) Pastoral areas. (C) Agro-pastoral areas. (D) Agricultural area.
Figure 5δ convergence result.
Absolute β convergence result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| β | 0.0625*** | 0.0910*** | 0.0174** | 0.0620*** |
| (0.003) | (0.009) | (0.007) | (0.004) | |
| α | −0.5654*** | −0.8767*** | −0.1447** | −0.5561*** |
| (0.029) | (0.093) | (0.067) | (0.033) | |
| Ob. | 570 | 57 | 114 | 399 |
| N. of id | 30 | 3 | 6 | 21 |
Standard errors in parentheses; ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05.
Conditional β convergence result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| β+1 | 0.8869*** | 0.8572*** | 0.8024*** | 0.8962*** |
| (0.022) | (0.059) | (0.053) | (0.026) | |
| α | 1.0126*** | 1.4060** | 1.8563*** | 0.9005*** |
| (0.200) | (0.579) | (0.492) | (0.235) | |
| Observations | 540 | 54 | 108 | 378 |
| R-squared | 0.760 | 0.807 | 0.698 | 0.763 |
| Number of id | 30 | 3 | 6 | 21 |
Standard errors in parentheses; ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05.
Benchmark regression result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Structure | −0.3621*** | −0.6346*** | −0.1381*** | −0.1745*** | −0.1427*** | −0.1880*** |
| (0.073) | (0.042) | (0.046) | (0.041) | (0.046) | (0.042) | |
| Industry | −2.0987*** | −0.7963** | −0.7742** | |||
| (0.402) | (0.348) | (0.364) | ||||
| Urban | −0.9970*** | −0.0231 | −0.1910 | |||
| (0.143) | (0.125) | (0.130) | ||||
| Income | −0.0141 | −0.1408*** | −0.1151*** | |||
| (0.053) | (0.031) | (0.033) | ||||
| Postal | 0.7156*** | −0.0431 | 0.1287*** | |||
| (0.026) | (0.048) | (0.045) | ||||
| Engel | −0.5158*** | −0.2306*** | −0.2470*** | |||
| (0.135) | (0.062) | (0.066) | ||||
| Constant | 10.5608*** | 18.8011*** | 9.6255*** | 15.9725*** | 9.6447*** | 14.4623*** |
| (0.306) | (1.805) | (0.194) | (1.503) | (0.260) | (1.550) | |
| Observations | 570 | 570 | 570 | 570 | 570 | 570 |
| R-squared | 0.042 | 0.769 | 0.016 | 0.249 | ||
| Number of id | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
Standard errors in parentheses; ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05.
Robustness test result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Structure | −0.1563*** | −0.1962*** | −0.3976*** | −0.7079*** |
| (0.044) | (0.039) | (0.080) | (0.049) | |
| Industry | −0.9844*** | −2.1575*** | ||
| (0.334) | (0.422) | |||
| Urban | −0.3316** | −0.9762*** | ||
| (0.131) | (0.153) | |||
| Income | −0.0353 | −0.0072 | ||
| (0.035) | (0.055) | |||
| Postal | −0.0248 | 0.7336*** | ||
| (0.047) | (0.028) | |||
| Engel | −0.1903*** | −0.4119*** | ||
| (0.063) | (0.140) | |||
| Constant | 9.9553*** | 17.0562*** | 10.7049*** | 18.6558*** |
| (0.183) | (1.456) | (0.336) | (1.879) | |
| Observations | 494 | 494 | 540 | 540 |
| R-squared | 0.026 | 0.267 | 0.042 | 0.768 |
| Number of id | 26 | 26 | 30 | 30 |
Standard errors in parentheses; ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05.